The appeals court ruled that the case is ’moot' as the Ontario government ended the province’s COVID-19 vaccine passport program in March 2022.
An Ontario court has dismissed an appeal that challenged the province’s COVID-19 vaccine passport program, saying the issue was moot.
The appeals court decided on Oct. 24 that the case is no longer relevant because the Ontario government ended the province’s COVID-19 vaccine passport program in March 2022.
The case was brought forward by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) on behalf of eight Canadians.
None of the eight individuals received the COVID-19 vaccine, citing various concerns over possible side effects, the lack of scientific studies about its safety, and personal religious beliefs. As a result, they did not qualify for a vaccine passport issued by the province. A passport was required to attend public places such as movie theatres, restaurants, gyms, and concert halls during the height of pandemic restrictions in 2021 and early 2022.
“Denying Ontarians access to gyms, restaurants, and wellness facilities on the basis that they have not taken a novel medical treatment is unconstitutional,” lawyer for the appellants Allison Pejovic said in a
news release. “The regulation that created the provincial vaccine passport system created a two-tiered society.”
The Epoch Times reached out to JCCF for comment on the judge’s decision but did not hear back by publication time.
Mandates Violate Charter Rights, Appellants Say
The constitutional challenge against the vaccine mandates was first filed in Ontario’s Supreme Court of Justice on Oct. 18, 2021.The JCCF argued that the vaccine mandates violated the plaintiffs’ Charter rights.
However, the court
disagreed, saying in a December 2022 ruling that “The Applicants’ personal experiences, which are undoubtedly sad and serious, do not demonstrate a contravention of freedom of religion, the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person, or discrimination based on religion or disability.”
One of the individuals in the case, Sarah Lamb, lost sensation from her waist down following her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. She was not eligible for an exemption because it was offered only to those who had a “ verifiably allergic to vaccine ingredients” or those who suffered myocarditis or pericarditis after a first dose, court documents say. Another JCCF client, Sarah Harjee, was pregnant during the pandemic and worried about the effects the vaccine may have on her and her unborn child. Ms. Harjee, who has degrees in nursing and public health, decided to wait until more information on the safety of the vaccine was available.
The owner of an Ottawa gym was also involved in the lawsuit. Sam Sabourin said the passport mandate was wrong in that it compelled him to exclude customers from his facility based on their vaccine status. Mr. Sabourin said the mandate violated his freedom to act in accordance with his conscience.
The remainder of the appellants cited medical conditions for not getting vaccinated, such as a history of blood clots, in addition to religious reasons.
None of the JCCF clients were able to get an exemption from the vaccine passport mandate.
Before the vaccine passport was mandated, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said requiring proof of vaccination in public settings would reduce the risk of spreading the virus.
He described the passports in a
statement as “an important step to encourage every last eligible Ontarian to get their shot, which is critical to protecting the province’s hospital capacity, while also supporting businesses with the tools they need to keep customers safe, stay open and minimize disruptions.”
Mr. Ford said the decision was made with the advice of the chief medical officer of health.
Ontario’s vaccine passport program started in September 2021. Businesses that did not comply could have faced fines up to $100,000 and owners could also face jail time, JCCF said.
BC Court Allows Appeal
In a similar case, a
B.C. court permitted an appeal that challenged the vaccine passports in that province.
“There is something to be gained by having this court consider the issue and provide some guidance,” justices in the appeals hearing said on Oct. 6, 2023.
The court had been considering whether the issue, like the one in Ontario, was moot.
Representatives for the Attorney General’s office said the orders had expired 17 months ago and there were no current orders requiring proof of vaccination, making the case irrelevant.
Lawyer for the petitioners, Geoffrey Trotter, disagreed.
“It’s in the public interest to have an authoritative determination about whether they were legitimate or not,” he said during the court hearing.
The case was brought forward by the Canadian Constitution Federation (CCF) on behalf of the three individuals who say they suffered harm as a result of the vaccine passport program.
Tara MacIsaac contributed to this report.
