Employers

A large number of employers, both government, and private sector, made vaccination a condition of employment. If an employee refused to be vaccinated, they would be fired or laid off without pay.

For many, their employment was essential to meet basic living needs for themselves and/or their family. In other words, their employment was vital.

Our common law, our Canadian Statute law, and international law, are all clear that:

• individuals have sovereignty over their own bodies, and

• it is illegal to coerce a person into taking an experimental treatment.

Private employers will likely claim that they made vaccination mandatory for health reasons (i.e. to protect other employees and/or customers). However, it will be difficult to justify such drastic measures. At the beginning of the vaccine mandates it was clear:

• Covid-19 did not pose a threat that was very different than past severe influenza seasons. Never before were such drastic measures taken;

• the Covid-19 Vaccines were clearly experimental. They were approved under an emergency authorization (the September 16, 2020 Interim Order) which did not require actual proof of safety or of efficacy. Further, they included novel ingredients, such as mRNA that had never been used before;

• very quickly, reports of serious adverse reactions began to be reported.

As time has gone one, an employer would have had to have been wilfully blind of the dangers of the vaccines. There have been widespread reports of serious adverse reactions, lack of efficacy, and lack of safety. This is written in May 2022. At this time vaccine mandates for employment cannot be justified by any objective analysis of the science.

There are several Criminal Code offences that apply to employers. Section 423 of the Criminal Code includes:

423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,...

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

The offence of intimidation is committed if a person:

1. wrongfully and without lawful authority;

2. for the purpose of compelling another person to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing;

3. intimidates or attempts to intimidate by threats that punishment will be inflicted on him or her if they do not do what they have a legal right to abstain from doing.

Threatening employees with termination if they do not take an experimental treatment that it is their right to abstain from taking, is criminal intimidation.

Some employers will say they were not acting “wrongfully” in that they were intending to protect the health of employees. However, justifying criminal intimidation to protect the health of others would require substantial evidence to justify the action. We doubt that most employers did any research or performed any due diligence to support the threat of job loss.

Another section is s. 219 concerning criminal negligence which includes:

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

219 (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

Causing death by criminal negligence

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Employers were not under a “duty” to make vaccination a condition of employment. They chose to do so. In choosing to do anything, an employer shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others, they are committing criminal negligence.

Using May 2022, as an example we have reports of unprecedented deaths and disablement linked to the vaccines. Government statistics are showing all-cause mortality increasing for the vaccinated versus the non-vaccinated. In other words there is clear proof the risk of the vaccines outweigh any benefit. We have long passed the “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others line”. Wilful blindness is not a defence to criminal negligence.

If an employee is coerced into getting vaccinated by the employer’s policy and that employee dies, this is criminal negligence causing death. As indicated above, the penalty for criminal negligence causing death includes life imprisonment.

We indicated that employers were not under a “duty” to impose vaccination as a condition of employment. Employers were under a “duty” to ensure safety in the workplace. This is found in s. 217 of the Criminal Code which reads:

217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Section 217.1 puts a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to employees. If an employer is to mandate an experimental treatment as a condition of

employment, there is a duty to ensure that bodily harm will be prevented. Continuing with vaccination mandates in the face of the current evidence is a clear breach of this duty. Failing to adhere to this duty is another way that employers can be liable for death or harm caused to employees from the vaccines.