Western Standard - Calgary lawyer outraged with ruling barring her client from talking with his kids about COVID

00:00:00.000 .

00:00:30.000 .

00:01:00.000 .

00:01:30.000 Let's get started.

00:02:00.000 Thank you.

00:02:30.000 Good evening I'm Melanie Rizdin with the Western Standard and this evening we're going to be

00:02:38.880 speaking with a Calgary lawyer who was representing a client who was up against his wife with the

00:02:48.000 topic of their children being vaccinated. Now the mother was interested in having the children

00:02:52.880 vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus however the father was not. The court case or the case

00:02:59.600 landed in court and was settled yesterday and joining me right now is Katherine Kowalczyk

00:03:05.920 and Randy Collins from Goetz Collins and Associates. Thanks for joining me tonight,

00:03:10.640 ladies. We're going to discuss what went down in court and what the ruling from the justice was

00:03:20.080 for your clients thanks melanie for having us today so so the the case was heard and the court

00:03:29.680 ruling came down yesterday um what what was the outcome for your clients well the the application

00:03:37.520 was heard in november and the court the judge uh justice reserved her decision and it did come out

00:03:43.440 yesterday uh essentially the application was for mom to have sole decision making with respect to

00:03:51.360 all healthcare related decisions uh with respect what was that was that sorry if you if you're

00:04:03.120 having a tough time hearing me sorry um was that um a decision that was different because i

00:04:08.320 understand that the parents sort of made joint decisions all this time since their divorce in

00:04:13.660 2014. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. But the application brought by the mom was to

00:04:21.180 vaccinate the children with the COVID vaccine, COVID-19 vaccination immediately for the child

00:04:29.040 who was over 12 and recognizing that the approval was going to be coming fairly imminently by Health

00:04:37.000 Canada with respect to the 5 to 11-year-olds seeking preemptive relief in that regard.

00:04:43.240 But she also sought to have sole decision-making with respect to all health-related decisions

00:04:49.420 with respect to the children as part of her application.

00:04:53.980 And so those were the main issues held that we were arguing.

00:04:59.520 So when we argued the decision in November, a number of numerous information was provided to the courts with respect to why my client wanted to wait and see to vaccinate the children with the COVID-19 vaccine.

00:05:19.500 his concerns were that based on what he had researched that they were not necessarily safe

00:05:27.360 or effective and that further long-term studies were required so that we had a better idea as to

00:05:35.360 what kind of impacts this could have with respect to children and so that was the basic premise of

00:05:42.080 argument to the court that day. Okay. And so the ruling was in favor of the mother. So now

00:05:50.680 it sounds like not only are the children going to be vaccinated, but she now takes sole decision

00:05:57.080 making power for their medical care. Is that what I understand? Yes, that's correct. We're

00:06:04.620 very disappointed with the ruling, but it's not unsurprising how the judge ruled in this

00:06:12.060 instance, because as you know, COVID-19 and the issue of vaccines is quite polarized. The judge

00:06:19.040 noted that as well in her decision. But what was striking about this ruling is that the judge

00:06:29.360 ordered that notwithstanding the father had joint decision-making authority with respect to

00:06:36.240 health care related decisions regarding the children that because of them and these are

00:06:43.520 the misinformation and conspiracy theories that were argued by the mom that they had stated that

00:06:50.720 my client was arguing that all of his information was misinformation all of his information was

00:06:57.200 based on conspiracy theories it was based on that premise that she ruled that ultimately

00:07:04.960 even though mom has a duty to consult with dad with respect to health care related decisions 0.60

00:07:12.140 in the future by doing such things as attending counseling and and perhaps other mediation

00:07:18.400 perhaps but if they were not able to reach an agreement ultimately that she would have final say

00:07:24.560 And so that is to me that that that decision was a huge overreach by this justice in making this decision.

00:07:37.440 She acknowledges in the judgment herself that no evidence was provided with respect to previous decisions where the parties might not have agreed.

00:07:50.360 In fact, she stated that, in fact, the COVID vaccine decision or issue was the only issue that seemed to be the issue and dispute between the parties.

00:08:02.920 But notwithstanding that, because of the information that my client was relying on, that he was essentially not acting in the children's best interest, which is the test used in family law matters, and that ultimately the mom would be granted that authority.

00:08:20.660 In addition to why the case is horrible, in my opinion, is that she also has censored my client with respect to what he is allowed to say to his children.

00:08:36.360 and in fact ordered that he nor he both himself as well as any third party cannot speak to the

00:08:46.840 children about the COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 generally so that's a direct violation of section

00:08:54.340 two of the charter parents have obviously they should have full authority and autonomy to speak

00:09:02.220 to their children about anything that they want to. And the fact that the judge has made this

00:09:07.900 ruling is in line with other judges' rulings. For instance, the Justice Germain ruling with

00:09:15.960 Pastor Art Pulaski and Chris Scott that came out earlier this year, where Justice Germain

00:09:23.420 forced compelled speech on these defendants. So this is a disturbing trend that the courts are

00:09:31.100 creeping into the lives of of people and especially now families and parents but this isn't the only

00:09:39.440 case in Canada where this issue or the issue of COVID-19 vaccination has has resulted this way

00:09:48.060 other jurisdictions have also ruled this way have taken judicial notice of the fact that whatever

00:09:54.900 the government of Canada and the Alberta government is saying is safe and effective

00:10:00.140 of they're taking them at their word that it is safe and effective not withstanding there is a

00:10:05.820 plethora of information available uh to the contrary so so my understanding then is that

00:10:15.200 the justice felt that what the mother was providing as far as her research was you know obviously

00:10:22.800 the government of Alberta website information,

00:10:27.480 Health Canada information.

00:10:28.940 So she felt that was credible in comparison

00:10:32.740 to what your client had produced as far as his feelings

00:10:37.520 and beliefs on the vaccine and its safety and efficacy.

00:10:42.420 What kind of information did he draw from?

00:10:45.560 The information that my client presented was information which included a report done by

00:10:55.240 Dr. Bridal with COVID Care Alliance that raised the alarm about the efficacy of the vaccine

00:11:02.440 with respect to children specifically, which came out this summer.

00:11:07.200 In addition, numerous articles were provided to her, various data reports, the Pfizer approval

00:11:17.040 from Health Canada was also provided to her, which clearly set out that long-term studies

00:11:25.660 were required with respect to the Pfizer vaccine.

00:11:30.220 And information was also provided to the justice from the American Medical Association, which

00:11:37.080 called out the approval of the Pfizer vaccine for the age group the children age group where they

00:11:43.960 had concerns about the veracity of the Pfizer study because the Pfizer study only studied a

00:11:54.440 very small sample size of children and from that small sample size they were only followed for two

00:12:02.440 months after the clinical study was concluded and as you know after the pfizer vaccine was approved

00:12:10.040 for children in canada reports were coming out from various organizations one in particular

00:12:17.960 being the ontario ontario health they published a report which is also provided to the justice in

00:12:26.600 this case showing the increase of myocarditis and pericarditis in youth and especially with males

00:12:36.040 and so she did have the opportunity to look at this this evidence and to consider

00:12:44.040 the other side of the story what what angers me i think about this case the most

00:12:49.160 is the constant rhetoric that even our judges are using in these decisions that they're basically

00:12:55.960 parroting the government narrative and whatever the mainstream um media talking points are

00:13:03.240 you'll see throughout the judgment that she talks about misinformation and she talks about

00:13:08.440 conspiracy theories and that um and really she relies on that narrative in justifying her her

00:13:18.600 opinion and she's also relying on information that was provided by the mum just taken from

00:13:24.760 the Alberta government and Health Canada websites that say effectively that these vaccines are safe

00:13:30.520 and effective but provide no substantive links or resources for the public to to inquire further into

00:13:38.760 why these why what to understand what they're relying on and so this isn't this is a common

00:13:48.120 theme that has occurred in canada and alberta uh with respect to this issue that we are fed

00:13:54.600 information from government sources and we are expected just to take this information at face

00:14:02.280 value we know for a fact that there are a lot of doctors in canada and around the world who

00:14:09.000 are blowing the whistle and are raising the alarm bell with respect to not only the vaccines but

00:14:16.200 the lockdown measures in general and the decisions that the governments are making worldwide with

00:14:21.320 respect to COVID-19. So you feel that your client then all of the evidence that you brought forward

00:14:30.440 on his behalf really just wasn't taken at the same face value as the mother who brought forward

00:14:40.840 her evidence and that seems to have been uh sort of looked at as more credible well the problem

00:14:48.680 one of the issues with respect to this application was that it was an application in special chambers

00:14:53.800 and so and you know admittedly neither the mom nor the dad presented what would you would call

00:15:02.600 qualified expert evidence in this in this proceeding a lot of it um was information

00:15:08.680 provided and available to the court um but we didn't go through a full trial there was no um

00:15:13.800 verbal testimony given by either of the parties and it was an application um that was brought

00:15:20.520 basically on affidavit evidence so um but but what the judge uh because of because she's overreached

00:15:32.200 in my opinion with respect to granting mom soul decision making authority with respect to all 0.97

00:15:37.880 healthcare related decisions and the fact that he she has censored my client with respect to what

00:15:44.280 he may speak to his children about it's problematic and other cases other family law cases for

00:15:51.720 instance in ontario um there was one uh one ruling in ontario where the dad who had already had

00:16:00.120 supervised visits with his his child um the judge in that case reduced the visitation rights for

00:16:09.160 that child to one hour uh and the visitation has had to occur outside and this was because

00:16:15.480 the dad had received the first dose of a vaccine had an adverse reaction had a doctor's note

00:16:22.040 advising um recommending that the dad not take the second shot and it was based on that that

00:16:29.160 the judge made the ruling that the visits had to occur outside so because because he was then going

00:16:35.480 to be somehow putting the child at risk because he wasn't vaccinated okay apparently and so it's a

00:16:44.200 it's a troubling trend because um you can if you read between the lines of what this case possibly

00:16:51.080 could mean in a family law context is that parental rights generally are going to be

00:16:59.120 suspended over this issue based on what I believe to be government propaganda without

00:17:05.800 any of these measures having been tried and tested in a court of law to this date really.

00:17:13.320 And so you had mentioned before about the constitutionality of doesn't the government

00:17:19.700 have to justify justify these measures and you're quite right under section one of the charter they

00:17:26.020 have to justify that these measures are demonstrably justified in order to infringe on people's rights

00:17:32.900 and this is a clear infringement of my clients rights with respect to especially the um censoring

00:17:39.860 of what he's able to say to his own children now is there any kind of appeal process for him or is

00:17:46.260 this is this done is this finished yes there is an appeal that we can make and

00:17:52.080 we are currently looking at that right now okay well and speaking on the

00:17:57.120 constitutionality side of these decisions and the government sort of

00:18:01.580 bearing the burden of proving demonstrably you know Randy I know that

00:18:06.300 you focus heavily on employment law and I'm imagining you're busy in this day

00:18:12.960 and age with yes unfortunately with this so so when it comes to you know what

00:18:21.680 Catherine's talking about how how there is a burden of proof that that that

00:18:26.880 weighs on the government for for sort of validating these mandates and these

00:18:32.720 restrictions that are being placed you know has have we just not gotten to that

00:18:39.360 part or that place yet in court? Have we just not gotten there yet where anyone has really put

00:18:46.320 that to test against the government and these mandates and these laws and bylaws that are

00:18:51.880 coming in? Yes, you're exactly right. We haven't gotten there yet. And for any person that is

00:18:57.700 calling in or anyone that has an employment law matter, there's two different things that are at

00:19:02.780 stake and especially with federal employees is whether or not the mandate is correct is a

00:19:08.580 completely separate issue as to whether or not an employer implements it properly or is then

00:19:14.020 flowing it down to that employee. So unfortunately in the employment matter, we're not challenging

00:19:20.180 the government itself. Those are separate and apart issues and those have not been properly

00:19:25.080 before the court at this time and we don't have any clear direction as to when

00:19:30.360 we will actually see that being properly adjudicated. And I'm assuming that you are

00:19:36.800 working with numerous clients uh with regard to you know these people being laid off and let go

00:19:44.240 and terminated with cause or without cause absolutely we're seeing it unfortunately more

00:19:50.240 and more uh definitely through october we saw a huge wave of individuals that were receiving notice

00:19:56.400 that unless they received the vaccination their employment would be terminated

00:20:00.240 at most were given notice that their employment would be terminated with cause especially any

00:20:06.720 federal employees based on the fact that the employer had to comply with the federal mandate

00:20:13.280 and this this was implemented across the board with no consideration for proportionality in

00:20:19.200 a lot of instances so individuals that were working from home or would have absolutely

00:20:25.040 no interaction with other individuals or could be reasonably accommodated were not done that

00:20:30.960 accommodation was not done and those matters will be proceeding to court yeah i mean i mean logically

00:20:37.920 even just logically thinking about the burden that the government would have to prove that

00:20:43.200 that forcing you know somebody out of work who worked from home and was not in a position to be

00:20:49.040 putting anyone else at risk when they you know signed onto the clock in the morning it seems

00:20:54.080 like that's going to be a heavy burden for the government to show that that decision was was

00:21:00.960 know provable the difficulty is is we're not seeing and and catherine has stated we're not

00:21:07.440 seeing a lot of decisions in our favor in terms of uh what the justice system is going to do and so

00:21:14.480 like catherine said they are taking judicial notice of the the publications of the government

00:21:20.240 and taking them as enough or sufficient evidence that there's health and safety concerns in terms

00:21:26.240 of whether or not somebody is implementing a mandatory vaccination policy we're also

00:21:31.120 disappointed to see some decisions that have been coming out which have unfortunately been leaning

00:21:37.120 towards the fact that they don't believe an employer making you decide between a mandatory

00:21:41.680 vaccination or a vaccination or losing their job is actually forcing vaccination because they believe

00:21:48.400 there is a choice between your employment or receiving the vaccination which i find it very

00:21:54.720 difficult to reconcile how how that is a choice but that is what we're seeing from decisions that

00:22:00.560 have been coming out do you ladies think that we are going to have access to fair justice

00:22:10.320 i think randy might be more optimistic than i am about that

00:22:14.080 um but i don't know i don't want to put words in randy's mouth so i i think it's going to be a

00:22:19.360 long time before we see fairness return with respect to the COVID-19 issue in particular.

00:22:33.040 I don't know if you know this, but I'm also part of a group called Lawyers for Truth and

00:22:37.040 I'm also a plaintiff suing the Court of Queen's Bench and the Provincial Court of Alberta

00:22:41.760 over their masking policy.

00:22:47.200 And in my opinion, and I feel very strongly about this

00:22:52.560 and why I'm so dedicated to helping people

00:22:55.620 wade through all of this nonsense,

00:22:58.640 if the courts themselves are prepared

00:23:02.740 to implement these policies,

00:23:06.040 including vaccination policies for their clerks and staff

00:23:11.600 and and sheriffs right now and mandatory masking policies and this is occurring across canada

00:23:18.720 and because the government has not done its job in doing a proper cost-benefit analysis and debate

00:23:26.880 in the legislature or in the parliament of canada and because this hasn't been referenced to the

00:23:32.640 supreme court of canada for a ruling all of these um and because these courts are implementing these

00:23:38.720 policies themselves um it's not surprising that we're getting these rulings i mean

00:23:47.680 to be blunt for your viewers they've drank the kool-aid and they don't seem to they don't seem

00:23:55.360 to see uh what the issues here are in fact and um there was uh the chief justice who who made

00:24:03.760 a ruling in manitoba with respect to a jccf case uh that was heard last spring you know he talks

00:24:11.120 about in his ruling that it's not the court's position to question the government so i mean

00:24:19.840 he should be fired um who else who who should be keeping our government who should be the

00:24:27.680 check and balance then right i don't agree with that and i don't agree with any of these decisions

00:24:32.720 and you know i i was i was particularly troubled today when i um saw the tweet put out by the court

00:24:40.720 of queen's bench themselves about this case this family law case family law matters are private

00:24:47.920 in fact you can't access the court record of a family law file unless you're counsel

00:24:53.680 or you're the party to the file and it's because that these it's because um these matters are

00:25:02.080 personal and they deal with personal matters so i find it very interesting and curious that the

00:25:09.600 court this exact day that we were mailed emailed the judgment from the justice that the court also

00:25:16.880 tweeted out to everybody this ruling why do you think that was because they have their talking

00:25:24.160 points from the from the the government they're standing behind these uh draconian measures that

00:25:30.880 they themselves are imposing and they want everybody to know that this is this is now

00:25:38.720 the precedent in alberta you need to vaccinate your kids and i have one thing to say to them

00:25:46.400 well it's not going to work because parents are outraged and they are not going to take this

00:25:53.600 lying down and there are many clients uh in fact one i'm representing where we will be bringing

00:26:00.560 another court or dealing with this again likely in another court challenge in the near future

00:26:07.680 and uh parents parents are upset and be and they they look to the courts to adjudicate

00:26:17.760 according to the law not according to popular opinion or government propaganda and rhetoric

00:26:24.320 and this is exactly what is occurring here and so when you have a lawless system it completely

00:26:32.560 turns our society upside down but these parents are desperate these parents are acting in the

00:26:39.200 best interest of their children they are trying to protect their children and it is very well

00:26:45.440 known not only from the information that we presented to this justice but around the world

00:26:51.520 if you have internet access, you will see very clearly that the vaccine does not prevent

00:26:59.400 transmission. You will see that the vaccine, that children are not at high risk of COVID-19

00:27:08.180 or long-term effects of COVID-19. Very few children have died in Canada. I think less

00:27:16.900 and 2% have been hospitalized. This information was available to the justice and she either

00:27:25.900 didn't want to look at it or preferred the mom's evidence over ours, which is, I guess,

00:27:32.540 her prerogative as the justice. But the ruling as it reads is quite biased and anybody should

00:27:39.980 be able to see that. So you are going to be moving forward with

00:27:45.180 an appeal process? Well, we're discussing it with my clients right now. You know, the other thing

00:27:52.360 that these cases have highlighted is the inversion of the legal system. And in order to appeal this,

00:28:05.440 we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars. People who are also losing their job because of

00:28:12.240 their either religious convictions

00:28:14.520 or their desire not to take a COVID-19 vaccination

00:28:18.920 and are losing their jobs

00:28:20.680 are being put in a very precarious position

00:28:23.580 of having to fight these issues in court,

00:28:27.840 expending resources that they do not have.

00:28:31.380 Right.

00:28:32.220 And so it is a tragic situation.

00:28:35.880 Whether or not my client will appeal this

00:28:38.520 is yet to be determined,

00:28:39.780 but we are certainly exploring these options

00:28:43.580 because this precedent cannot stand.

00:28:48.360 I mean, the fact that he is not allowed,

00:28:52.140 according to this justice, to talk to his children

00:28:55.040 about what it is he wants to talk to his children about is-

00:28:59.380 Well, yeah, I would imagine that would put him

00:29:02.560 in a very sticky position if, let's say,

00:29:05.060 the kids come home and they have a question for him

00:29:07.940 or they want to talk about something,

00:29:10.000 or, you know, they're curious about something

00:29:13.120 and he has to sort of stay tight-lipped about it.

00:29:17.740 And who is to say that this information is misinformation?

00:29:21.400 You know, I love the characterization

00:29:23.520 that that was the underpinning argument

00:29:26.120 that the justice relied upon

00:29:28.400 in granting sole decision-making to the mom,

00:29:31.340 that, you know, it was,

00:29:34.140 dad was relying on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Well, information is information and you

00:29:40.940 can prefer information over other information and that is often what the judge's obligation is and

00:29:46.940 duty is in adjudicating any matter. But the thing is, is that because of these soundbite rhetoric

00:29:54.380 propaganda stuff that's coming out of the media and the governments who like

00:30:05.580 to say that something is misinformation is repugnant it's information and we have to start

00:30:13.660 calling this type of language out and we have to be pushing back because it's not misinformation

00:30:20.300 it might be different information information that they don't prefer and may not want to look at but

00:30:26.220 it's not misinformation and you know i'm i deal with um doctors now especially through my role

00:30:33.820 at lawyers for truth experts around the world doctors who have lost their job who are being

00:30:40.300 censored who are being vilified with within the mainstream media and their colleges losing their

00:30:46.780 professional designations because they are doing the right thing they are saying whoa

00:30:53.740 we need to look at this information we don't have enough information making these decisions

00:31:00.060 and making something effectively mandatory which is what randy was alluding to earlier you know

00:31:07.660 when you're faced with the with um a choice between your job and putting food on the table

00:31:15.420 for your children and um taking the vaccine or losing your job that is not a choice there is

00:31:23.260 nothing about choice in that and the fact that our society and our profession included there's law

00:31:33.100 firms across Canada and in our city that have mandated their own have their own vaccination

00:31:38.940 policy and in fact are not allowing clients to attend their office without proof of vaccination

00:31:45.420 it's insanity yeah it um it seems to be a snowball for sure uh randy um on the on the employment

00:31:56.380 side of things um are you still able to take clients uh you know i i know there are a lot

00:32:03.660 of people i get emails every day from people looking for help questions you know even just

00:32:08.780 you know whether they were let go with cause is is something they can fight or can't fight you

00:32:14.940 know just simple questions like that um you know are you are you an option for people to reach out

00:32:19.980 to right now or are you you know very swamped uh although we are swamped yes we are definitely

00:32:26.220 making ourselves available to assist uh we are still taking clients and and we are obviously

00:32:31.980 taking a look at everyone as a case by case and it's unfortunate how much we are seeing and

00:32:37.420 and the poor treatment that we're seeing with employees and one one of the biggest things that

00:32:42.460 is shocking to me is that throughout all of this there has been a complete loss of humanity

00:32:49.020 in terms of how people are dealt with and how people are treated is uh is just shocking to me

00:32:54.300 that individuals that have been employed by an organization for several years been very good

00:32:59.500 employees have been very loyal and they're just tossed as if they were nothing and i think that is

00:33:05.980 the the biggest difficulty and much like Catherine's case here you know the fact that somebody

00:33:11.980 is not willing to become vaccinated you know in that specific decision where it was essentially

00:33:17.820 said that it gives the judge the air that this person is not able to make good decisions and

00:33:25.420 the fact that it would go to that extent in that type of a distinction or that type of a description

00:33:33.340 of somebody we're seeing that as well in the employment context that essentially they're

00:33:38.140 they're giving employees a choice by saying that either you join uh the team and become vaccinated

00:33:44.220 or you're not employed you're not anything to us and and a lot of times there's nothing given to

00:33:48.700 them on departure yeah i um it's it's a travesty i think too especially for for the healthcare

00:33:55.740 workers who you know worked through the pandemic in in the scary time when we really didn't know

00:34:03.500 what we were dealing with how bad it was you know the dangers involved with it and they still you

00:34:09.900 know march to work every day and still took the risk and you know sort of took it for the team

00:34:14.620 and they were our heroes and we celebrated them quite regularly and now to see many of them you

00:34:20.940 know getting the boot uh now is i just think it's an absolute travesty i couldn't agree more so it's

00:34:29.980 gets yeah go ahead no no go ahead no go ahead well i was just going to mention so so um you ladies

00:34:37.020 work with gets collins and associates that is the um that's the law firm so if you are in need of

00:34:43.980 speaking with somebody on you know and you're you've been let go you've been laid off you've been

00:34:49.820 suspended with without pay with without cause you have questions um there are lawyers that can help

00:34:56.060 and i know catherine um is a volunteer with lawyers for truth which catherine just some

00:35:02.140 sum up lawyers for truth for us let us know sort of what's what's happening there it's all volunteer

00:35:06.220 based um yeah we're we're just a kind of like a small group of people both lawyers and engineers

00:35:14.140 uh make up our small organization it is a company where we are a private company and do

00:35:20.620 receive donations and the premise behind lawyers for truth was um in january of this year we

00:35:26.460 started to provide legal mask exemptions recognizing um based on the orders that dr

00:35:33.580 hinshaw was putting out we felt that um you know we are autonomous beings people are autonomous

00:35:40.860 beings and we have you know sole decision making with respect to what goes on our person and in

00:35:47.260 our body and we had been against masking primarily recognizing that vaccination was around the

00:35:55.500 corner and we're very active in going to rallies and speaking but we are also providing mask

00:36:02.460 exemptions and still do and to and to a certain extent we provide information with respect to

00:36:09.020 how to um avoid the the vaccine uh if that is in fact what you would prefer we've always been about

00:36:19.580 choice um you know and we truly respect um a person's right to decide for themselves and that

00:36:28.780 is the underpinning of our organization we we lawyers for truth is supporting my lawsuit against

00:36:35.420 the courts but we are also contemplating you know contemplating always looking at other cases that

00:36:40.700 we can um help either promote help fund or um but because we're not a law firm um all that work

00:36:50.620 gets farmed out to people like randy and other lawyers across the province who we inundate with

00:36:57.900 information because we get we get so many emails and requests during any given day and especially

00:37:07.100 in september and october uh with people facing losing their jobs and so we really just want to

00:37:13.580 be a platform to people also to provide information like information from reputable

00:37:20.860 sources such as doctors and experts in other jurisdictions um and whatnot to and to and to be

00:37:30.680 um a community of support for people because what we're seeing in this day and age especially with

00:37:38.840 ridiculous statements like jason kenny says about that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated 0.91

00:37:45.620 um that ridiculous speech and the fact that he's being able to get away with saying things like 0.99

00:37:53.000 that is exactly why the courts glom on to this kind of rhetoric and then parrot the 0.68

00:37:58.460 stuff that we see in their decisions so now it is it is

00:38:05.260 it. COVID-19 has shone a light on the dysfunction of our society, right? And that is the only

00:38:15.400 silver lining, if I can call it that, with respect to this. It's highlighted the corruption,

00:38:22.800 it's highlighted the dysfunction, and it's highlighted the mismanagement of resources

00:38:28.740 and the in competence of government so we have an opportunity to build something better in the

00:38:36.620 future like really really uh take this opportunity to learn from it and to to make something better

00:38:44.480 when and if we get out of this um but lawyers for truth is about developing that community as well

00:38:51.560 and we're going to continue to um provide resources for people and to point people in the right

00:38:57.340 direction with respect to um getting them the good advice that they need with respect to their

00:39:05.340 individual circumstances there are very few lawyers in alberta and in canada who are prepared to

00:39:12.180 fight for their clients in this manner and with respect to this issue very few and so the few

00:39:19.240 lawyers that are doing it are are um are not only busy but they're very valuable yeah

00:39:27.080 They're extremely busy. I speak with a lot of them on a regular basis and I can I could probably

00:39:34.700 shovel

00:39:35.620 You know hundreds a week to lawyers that that email me looking for help and and information and connections

00:39:42.740 so that's lawyers for truth and 1.00

00:39:45.480 And these ladies work with gets Collins and associates 1.00

00:39:49.880 Catherine qual check and Randy Collins were joining me or are joining me right now and

00:39:54.540 And I think the sentiment is there's a lot of questions and there's a lot of confusion around what's happening legally.

00:40:06.140 And honestly, I think I could probably host a talk show once a week and have an hour full of questions from people.

00:40:12.880 So let's make sure that we touch base again and we'll look forward to you keeping us abreast of what comes from some of the cases that you're working on.

00:40:23.120 and we look forward to continuing to tell your stories ladies. Thank you so much Melanie for

00:40:28.720 having us on and for recognizing how important this issue is and in particular how important

00:40:34.320 this issue with respect to COVID vaccination in children is. We should all be very concerned.

00:40:42.800 Well thanks for joining me ladies appreciate it and we will touch base with you again and thanks

00:40:48.080 to you for watching tonight and uh we will also touch base with you another time thanks for

00:40:53.520 for watching.

Western Standard - December 16, 2021

Calgary lawyer outraged with ruling barring her client from talking with his kids about COVID

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript