The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling of a lower court which declared that lawsuits against the Liberal government for its travel vaccine mandate can be dismissed due to “mootness.”
Justice George Locke wrote in his Nov. 9 decision that there was no “palpable and overriding error” in the October 2022 decision made by Federal Court Justice Jocelyne Gagné.
Justice Locke said that “this Court can intervene only in the case of a palpable and overriding error by the Federal Court, or an extricable error of law.”
He added that many arguments from the appellants are “directed to urging this Court to decide for itself whether to exercise discretion. Again, that is not our role.”
Justice Locke was supported in his decision by the two other judges who sat on the panel which heard from the appellants on Oct. 11.
Four groups of Canadians have challenged the federal vaccine mandate for travel, which was in place from October 2021 to June 2022.
Shortly after the Liberal government suspended the mandate, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits over “mootness,” arguing there was no longer any live controversy to adjudicate.
During the October hearing, appellants sought to challenge the notion that there is no important public interest, citing the fact that the government mandate was only suspended and could be brought back.
“I find no merit in this argument,” said Justice Locke. “The appellants’ argument based on that threat was considered by the Federal Court but dismissed as highly speculative.”
He added “there is a difference between a case that raises an issue in which many people are personally interested in having a decision, and a case that raises ‘an issue of public importance of which a resolution is in the public interest.’”
Appellants have argued that approximately six million Canadians were denied mobility rights during the mandate and want the court to rule on the constitutionality of the matter.
“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 the 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.”
Other appellants include former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford, PPC Leader Maxime Bernier, and businessmen Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard.
Mr. Peckford and Mr. Bernier are represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). Allison Pejovic, a lawyer funded by the JCCF, said the two men are “disappointed” by the decision.
“The consequences of this decision is that there will be no justice for the Appellants and millions of unvaccinated Canadians whose lives were turned upside down by the federal government’s decision to prohibit them from travelling across the country and from leaving Canada,” she told The Epoch Times in a statement.
Mr. Rickard said in an interview he disagrees his case is of no public interest and noted the record amount of people who signed up with the court to watch the live hearing remotely.
“These three judges claim there was no public interest in our case,” he said. “Give me a break. This is outrageous and absurd.”
The judicial proceedings for the cases saw multiple government witnesses providing evidence in regard to why and how the vaccine mandate was put in place.
