Bernier, Peckford Ask Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Travel Vaccine Mandate

A traveler walks past a "Mandatory COVID-19 Testing" sign at Pearson International Airport during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic of Toronto, Ontario, on Dec. 18, 2021. Reuters/Carlo Allegri

Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford and People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier are among a group of Canadians asking the Supreme Court to take on their legal challenge to the federal government’s travel vaccine mandate.

In November 2021, the government required Canadians to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination to travel on a plane or train in Canada. The requirement was removed in June 2022.

In February 2022, a group, including Mr. Peckford and Mr. Bernier, filed an action against the federal government over the travel restriction.

The plaintiffs said the mandate violated their charter rights, specifically freedoms of religion and conscience, assembly, democratic rights, mobility, security, privacy, and equality.

In October 2022, a judge in the Federal Court rejected the lawsuit by citing “mootness.”

In October 2023, the group went before the Federal Court of Appeal, asking it to overturn the previous court decision in light of the fact that the government mandate was only suspended and could be brought back.

On Nov. 9, 2023, the Federal Court upheld the lower court ruling.

“The appellants’ argument based on that threat [of the government reintroducing the mandate] was considered by the Federal Court but dismissed as highly speculative,” Justice George Locke wrote in the court’s decision.

In a Jan. 11 news release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) said, “Premier Peckford, Maxime Bernier, and other Canadians now seek to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their case.”

The applicants argue “that the issues raised in their case are of national importance and that Canadians deserve access to court rulings about policies that violate the Charter freedoms of millions of Canadians,” the JCCF said. It said the lower court decision could result in future legal challenges to emergency orders also being deemed moot, as most emergency orders will be rescinded by the time the legal challenge makes its way through the court system.

“If courts are going to affirm and uphold emergency orders that violate our Charter rights and freedoms whenever the emergency order is no longer in force, how can the Charter protect Canadians from government abuses?” asked John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to create an important precedent for how Canadian courts deal with all so-called ‘moot’ cases involving questions about the constitutionality of emergency orders,” Mr. Peckford and Mr. Bernier’s lawyer Allison Pejovic said in the release.

“The public interest in this case is staggering. Canadians need to know whether it is lawful for the federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada, or from leaving and re-entering their own country, based upon whether they have taken a novel medication,” she added.

Travel Vaccine Challenge

Four groups of Canadians filed legal challenges over the vaccine mandate for travel.

In the Peckford and Bernier challenge, they argued that about 6 million Canadians were prevented from travelling due to the mandate.

“In 2022, this sub-class of citizens, the non-vaccinated, found themselves assimilated to Cubans under Fidel Castro’s regime,” said appellant Nabil Ben Naoum during an Oct. 11 hearing.

“These six million citizens, of which I am one ... found themselves prisoners of their country. I repeat this because all too often I have encountered people who have not grasped the full implications of the debate.”

Former appellants businessmen Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison told The Epoch Times they are not applying to the Supreme Court, but will focus on a new lawsuit that was filed on Nov. 29, 2023.

Mr. Rickard wrote in a post on the X platform the same day that they are suing the government for damages, something they did not attempt the first time around.

“Right from the get go it was never our intention to seek financial compensation, we didn’t want to appear to be looking to make any monetary gains from our lawsuit,” he said.

The lawsuit is seeking $1 million in damages for the violation of Charter rights.

Mr. Naoum said he has filed to have the Supreme Court hear his case.

Noé Chartier contributed to this report.