Trump to Reinstate Soldiers Who Refused COVID Shot, as Trudeau Fights Our Soldiers Who Refused It

Trudeau appointed judged dismissed CAF members' vaccine mandate lawsuit

Yesterday President-elect Donald Trump officially announced that all US military members who were discharged from the service for refusing the COVID mandate will be reinstated and receive full back pay, along with a formal apology from the United States Government. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Trudeau government, instead of considering any such move, is spending your tax dollars to fight members of its military who are seeking compensation for either being released from service for refusing the jab or were injured by it… and winning.

A class action lawsuit filed against the Trudeau government by 330 current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for mandating its members to take the COVID 19 shot was recently dismissed by a federal court Associate Judge.*

Judge Coughlan ruled that the Statement of Claim did not establish a legal basis for the plaintiffs'. The lawsuit was seeking damages for CAF members who were subjected to physical and psychological abuses and/or were released from service for refusing the shot, and for those who did take it and suffered adverse side effects and injuries.

*Associate Judges are appointed under the Federal Courts Act (s. 12). They are full judicial officers and exercise many of the powers and functions of Federal Court judges.

General Wayne Eyre, former Defence Minister Anita Anand and former DM of National Defence Jody Thomas, all named in the lawsuit.

Named in the lawsuit were former National Defence Minister Anita Anand, former Deputy Minister of National Defence Jody Thomas, former CAF Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Wayne Eyre, Vice CDS Frances Allen, and others. All Liberals, of course, so it should come again, as no surprise, that the Associate Judge who made the ruling, Catherine A. Coughlan was appointed to the post by former Liberal Justice Minister/Attorney General David Lametti. Prior to her appointment, Coughlan was a lawyer with the Federal Department of Justice and, in that capacity, had represented the government in other lawsuits against CAF members, so one has to wonder whether perhaps a conflict of interest was also at play in this decision. She has also thrown out similar cases against the government regarding COVID 19 vaccine mandates, including one filed by Canada Post employees. So, do we see a pattern or possible bias here?

When I describe those named in the lawsuit as Liberals, I include the former CDS Eyre, who went along with every single damaging and dangerous DEI policy that Liberals imposed on the CAF. Policies he could have pushed back on given the impact they would and did have on the serious operational demands of the CAF. But he never did, nor did he challenge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when he insisted all CAF members get the COVID 19 vaccines to ‘serve as a leadership example for Canadians.’ Instead, Eyre bowed to this unreasonable demand, despite the fact that he had been advised by CAF legal counsel that implementing such a policy would be an illegal order and would neither be effective nor necessary. This was likely due to the fact that the majority of CAF members are fit and young, therefore at a very low risk of having a severe case of COVID 19.

The lawsuit filed by the CAF members claimed that the vaccine mandates violated the multiple sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms including the rights to freedom of conscience (s. 2(a)), life and security (s. 7), and equality (s. 15). The 330 plaintiffs were seeking $1 million in general damages, per plaintiff, along with additional claims for punitive and special damages. The extensive Statement of Claim included individual brief summaries members citing specific details of what they were subjected to for refusing to take the shot. This ranged from administrative penalties and loss of pay to being ridiculed, humiliated, and coerced. This coercion included punishments from superior officers, such as being forced to work in severe environments and weather without proper equipment. Ultimately many were discharged from service–in some cases dishonourably. The claim also included detailed descriptions from members who had experienced adverse effects from taking the shot, which included cardiac issues, neurological problems, blood clots, and hemorrhaging to name a few.

The Crown had argued that plaintiffs were relying on conspiracy theories to support their claims, and it would appear Coughlan agreed. She found that the pleadings — presented in individual summaries produced by plaintiffs — were “replete with vexatious language” and “bald assertions of bad faith.”

This language included the plaintiffs’ describing the injections as ‘experimental gene therapy’, and ‘biologics’, without, according to the judge “any basis for these statements established.” However, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Catherine Christensen of the Valour Legal Action Centre explains that in a motion to strike* — which is what this hearing was on the part of the Crown — plaintiffs are not required to prove any of the facts they assert in their Statement of Claim. “The court, instead, is required to make the assumption that all of that facts are true,” she said. Yet it would appear that the judge in this case did not do this — but instead went with the Crown’s position that all the material presented in the Statement of Claim was based on ‘conspiracy theories’.

*A motion to strike is a request to a judge to remove a pleading from a legal action, which can be used to dispose of a case without a trial—meaning in this case the Crown was seeking to have this case disposed.

In that regard, it would also seem the good judge hasn’t been keeping abreast with the fact that many ‘conspiratorial’ elements of the ‘official’ pandemic narrative have since been proven to be correct. For example it was once conspiratorial to entertain the idea that the COVID 19 virus had escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China that was doing gain of function research on the corona virus rather from a Chinese wet market as was first claimed. But now the lab prospect has essentially been accept that, that is what, in fact, happened.

Many other elements of the ‘official’ COVID 19 narrative that were touted as ‘fact' by so-called ‘experts’, and adopted by governments to impose vaccine mandates and other unwarranted restrictions during the pandemic have also since been debunked.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was considered by many, during the pandemic, as the undisputed ‘COVID 19 guru’ recently admitted in US Senate hearings that the six foot social distancing and masking guidelines set out by the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) were not based on science. Additionally, dozens of studies and reports backed up by data and statistics have also since revealed that the lock downs did more damage than good.

Then there is the matter of the ‘gene therapy’ claim — whether the mRNA injections are gene therapy. Some experts such as Dr. Robert Malone, who was actually instrumental in pioneering the development of mRNA technology, has always maintained that they are. In fact, at a very recent conference he called for halting the use of the injections. “We must acknowledge that the COVID 19 genetic injections cause far more harm than good and provide zero benefit relative to risk for the young and healthy.”

‘Then there is this statement from the website of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy. “Because the vaccine (referring to the COVID 19 mRNA vaccine) introduced new genetic material into cells for a short period to time to induce antibodies, its is gene therapy.”

There is also this statement from Pfizer itself in one of its own reports which says that the proposed commercial scale manufacturing process (for the vaccines) includes the use of a linearized plasmid* DNA template for mRNA production, thus is is clear that Pfizer is clear that DNA — genetic material — was used in the manufacturing the process for the COVID injections.

*Extrachromosomal DNA elements that have been found in a small number of bacterial species.

Now one would be hard pressed to find a plethora of information of the gene therapy assertions via Google searches given that Google still seems to be in COVID 19 pandemic censorship mode when it comes to such ‘controversial’ subjects.

However, what is not controversial is the fact that the vaccines were neither safe nor effective as advertised. But, perhaps Coughlan hadn’t heard about Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) established by the federal government to deal specifically with injuries caused by the COVID 19 vaccine and only that vaccine. Thus far the program has paid out some $12* million in claims. Is that enough evidence of COVID 19 vaccine injuries for Coughlan? That should certainly be ‘factual’ enough to support the claimant’s injury claims.

*VISP claimants have often still launched individual lawsuits against the government for the injuries they suffered due to the fact that the VISP payouts do not fully compensate them for the full impact their injuries on their lives and livelihoods and that the payouts are slow and laden with red tape.

As to the efficacy of the shots, a factor Coughlan doesn’t seem to be at all concerned with, even though the evidence was very clear, even before the pandemic ended, that the COVID 19 shots, along with the never ending boosters, did very little to stop people from being infected with the virus or reduce the spread. Even claims that it reduced the severity of the disease if one did become infected are questionable.

Catherine Christensen

Coughlan in her ruling also asserted that the plaintiffs' claims and that the issues raised were better suited for the CAF’s own grievance process which allow members to have issues of wrongdoing against them addressed internally. But according to Christensen, the CAF grievance process is sadly lacking in terms of providing members any satisfaction or a reasonable course of action. She says that the process does not allow for any monetary relief even if the decision is in the member’s favour and only serving members can avail themselves of the process. As well, the ultimate ruling in determining whether a grievance has occurred resides with the serving CDS, upon whom there is no time limit to make a decision. She noted she has seen some grievance cases residing with the CDS for as long as three years before a decision was made.

In commenting on Judge Coughlan’s decision Christensen said, “Once again, the Federal Court has hidden behind the CAF grievance system to deny justice to members who face abuse of power from their chain of command.The next government needs to bring in legislation that will allow our military members to hold their leadership accountable for illegal and wrongful acts.” To add insult to injury, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay legal costs of $5,040, jointly. Christiansen said her clients are still determining their next course of action.

If you are interested in more background on the CAF’s imposition of the mandate on members at the behest of Trudeau, I published on article on that matter back in August of 2023.