00:00:00.000Good evening. I'm Melanie Rizdin with the Western Standard. Joining me tonight is
00:00:12.600Catherine Kowalchuk. She is a Calgary lawyer with Goetz Collins and Associates. She's also
00:00:18.160a lawyer with Lawyers for Truth. And we're talking with Catherine tonight because we did
00:00:24.580have a chat with Catherine about a month or two ago and Catherine was representing a client who
00:00:31.620was seeking to have his children not vaccinated and that court case turned out very differently
00:00:39.700from one that was just settled in an Ontario court on Tuesday. So we thought we would chat
00:00:45.380with Catherine a little bit about this new ruling and just get some insight from her as a lawyer and
00:00:53.860look at some comparisons to the the court case that she dealt with. So thanks for joining us
00:00:59.760Catherine. Thanks Melanie for having me. So this is a very interesting ruling. I have read through
00:01:07.420the judge's entire judgment on this and it's incredible. Why don't you fill us in a little bit?
00:01:16.240Yeah it is incredible. I first received this this morning and you know right from the get-go I was
00:01:23.840pleasantly surprised by the questions that this justice was asking uh in particular um i mean all
00:01:31.120of them were great throughout the judgment but what i you know let's just focus on a few of them
00:01:37.040if you if you would on the first page at line five paragraph five um the justice talks about
00:01:45.200misinformation and is this even a real word he says or has it become a crass self-serving tool
00:01:52.800to preempt scrutiny and discredit your opponent to lead delegitimize questions and strategically
00:01:58.960avoid giving answers blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system
00:02:05.120each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet misinformation in quotes has crept
00:02:11.200into the court lexicon um other other questions that i um like in his ruling include on paragraph
00:02:21.84020 on page five you know at sub at sub paragraph d he says can you simply utter the words conspiracy
00:02:31.040theorists and do a mic drop you know those are two instances of um very good questions
00:02:37.920in this ruling that I think we've been lacking for two years not only in our courts but in public
00:02:46.320discourse and with our politicians and so it is a refreshing decision it seems to me to be very
00:02:54.400reasonable very logical and it highlights very good points that other justices across Canada have
00:03:04.800simply ignored or disregarded in their rulings um and one of one of the things that this case
00:03:12.160highlights is the importance of having the decisions voices with respect to these health
00:03:18.240care decisions and the justice talks about that and i'm happy to see that because you know we
00:03:24.880have we all have bodily autonomy and our children may be you know little um but they are they are
00:03:32.400important and their their voices in this are integral um unfortunately you know we're not
00:03:39.120all able to get informed consent because we know that the information has been lacking it's been
00:03:45.840sparse people who have who have questioned the narrative of the the efficacy of the vaccines
00:03:51.840have been cancelled or vilified in the media and amongst peers and colleagues families and friends
00:03:59.760and um and the other thing that this case highlights which is great is um the justice's0.98
00:04:08.680review of judicial notice um what i also think of what is great about this is that a self-represented
00:04:16.320party the mom presented this to this court and um i just i just love the fact that she
00:04:22.880was self-represented oh so she didn't even have a lawyer no she oh wow it would seem by this
00:04:29.240judgment to be very professional and the judge was obviously persuaded by the information and
00:04:35.560the evidence that she provided which is set out in this judgment for everybody to read and I
00:04:40.220encourage everybody to read it because these are really good points that he brings out but
00:04:44.460you know he makes the point you know judicial notice has been something that these justices
00:04:49.780across Canada and Alberta and certainly in my case that they've relied upon in making their
00:04:55.360rulings with respect to these COVID mandates, right from the Court of Queen's
00:05:00.040Bench in Manitoba, Ontario, BC and Alberta, and others, the Saskatchewan as well.
00:05:06.280So, and what judicial notice is, is that something is so notoriously known, that
00:05:13.300basically, you don't need to provide any evidence of the fact that it exists, right.
00:05:20.020and we've had a lot of problems with this notion because obviously the information and the evidence
00:05:28.540has been lacking from the governments and and it seems just to be something that is just well you
00:05:34.500better take us at our word and and then that's and that's the end of the conversation of course
00:05:40.660that's not the end of the conversation and what I like about I'm sorry I'm just flipping through
00:05:45.700the ruling right now but what I like about this ruling at page 19 um paragraph 59 is that you'll
00:05:54.460see um at 58 and 59 um is that the justice clearly states that you know judicial notice cannot be
00:06:02.140taken of expert opinion evidence and he goes on to distinguish this what is a fact in what is an
00:06:09.620opinion. And he basically likens what the government has determined to be safe and effective
00:06:17.180as an opinion. Therefore, it's inappropriate to take judicial notice. Therefore, it's incumbent
00:06:24.080upon these governments and parties relying on this COVID narrative that they have to provide
00:06:32.380expert evidence. They have to provide legitimate evidence to support their position.
00:06:37.060And I really like, you know, he says it in the middle of the paragraph 59, a statement concerning the safety and efficacy of any medications in the prevention or treatment of any condition is in and of itself an opinion.
00:06:58.520Judicial notice cannot be taken of the opinion of any expert or government official that a medical treatment is safe and effective.
00:07:08.020that's a mic drop maybe that's a mic drop um you know so i think that it's um
00:07:16.260it's welcome news not only in the area of family law of course because this is a very contentious
00:07:20.980issue but this is i'm sure all the other lawyers who are bringing me have been bringing these court
00:07:26.420challenges across the country will um find this case particularly welcome and you know to talk
00:07:34.420about these cases i mean they i have to understand and you've been through it you've you've uh
00:07:40.580supported a client through this uh it's it's a difficult place to be in when you are talking
00:07:45.940about two parents who have very differing views on specifically a medical treatment uh for like
00:07:54.020you said you know children uh people children who are typically not looked on to have to make their
00:08:00.420own decisions and make these calls for themselves right and of course we as parents we're always
00:08:06.580working in the best interest of what we believe is right for our children and is in their best
00:08:13.300interest but you know the the fact that these two parents come to come you know to head on this
00:08:20.260this discussion has got to be very hard to begin with and and as a judge trying to discern you know
00:08:27.540what i appreciate about this judge's ruling is that uh that he went into it went into depth
00:08:34.820with the children as well spoke to the children and we're not talking very very young children i
00:08:39.300believe uh they were around 10 uh 12 years old in in this uh in this case yeah so we're not we're
00:08:46.660not talking you know three four five year olds but um you know the the interesting thing that
00:08:52.660I found with this justice is that the children were asked, what do you feel? What do you want?
00:09:00.200And they said unequivocally, one of the children spoke unequivocally and said they wanted the
00:09:05.360justice to know and understand they had a great fear of getting this injection. And to ignore
00:09:13.940that and rule in a parent's favor to allow the parent to have the child injected, this
00:09:23.100justice said, I believe that would cause quite a bit of emotional harm to the child.
00:09:30.880I think that's an important thing to be weighing here as well.
00:09:37.860But the test in family law with respect to these issues is what is in the best interest
00:09:43.340of the child and you know it's set out in our legislation in the divorce act for instance
00:09:48.540um and so really um what this judge has said in this ruling is very important not only do choice
00:09:58.700the children's voice matter but you know it it underpins uh you know a bigger problem that we've
00:10:06.300all been facing the past few years in particular that if you have a different opinion than automatic
00:10:13.180than the government or than the media then you're automatically some sort of crackpot conspiracy
00:10:19.420theorist anti-vaxxer nutcase and that's simply not the case and what's nice and refreshing about
00:10:26.540this judgment as well is that he was he looked at the mom's evidence and and you know in family
00:10:34.780law it's difficult because in these sorts of applications not there's not necessarily expert
00:10:40.940evidence that you you know that you would typically have in maybe a longer trial for instance
00:10:46.060uh or witness testimony so the the app the information provided was by way of affidavit
00:10:51.980and you know and so hiring experts is you know expensive etc etc and there's not the opportunity
00:10:59.900in these cases to do a cross-examination of these experts nonetheless the judge makes the point that
00:11:06.540yes it's you know it's up to the justice or the judge hearing the matter to decide whether or
00:11:12.380not it's material and relevant the information that was provided and in this case the justice
00:11:18.940was very mindful and considerate of the of the information that the mum was providing which is
00:11:24.860contrary to what the government narrative is and that's important because that that alone in and
00:11:33.020of itself highlights the point that this issue is not settled and so notoriously known as to be able
00:11:39.980to decide definitively that the COVID-19 is safe and effective. Not only that, he also makes the
00:11:49.420point that we cannot, and I don't think he says this directly, but it's implied, we cannot
00:11:57.020broadly based this sort of policy to apply to all children. When the test that the court goes through
00:12:07.060is what is in the best interest of this particular child.
00:12:12.460That's right. And so for this case particularly, just to highlight it, and I will have
00:12:19.620sort of some points from the judgment on the story on the website for you to, and I will also
00:12:27.260have a link to the full judgment for people to read for themselves. And I highly recommend you
00:12:31.600do because I really appreciate the, you know, the full picture that this judge paints of this kind
00:12:41.380of situation that we're facing in Canada and across the world. But this is two parents. This
00:12:46.940is a mother and a father who have three children uh the mother is uh sorry sort of primary guardian
00:12:54.100or custody has primary custody of of two of the younger children where the father has primary
00:12:59.920care for uh an older child now the older child chose said they wanted to get vaccinated and did
00:13:06.420uh but the younger children who are under the mother's care uh did not want to get vaccinated
00:13:12.000nor did the mother want them to get vaccinated and that's where the sort of fight ensued was
00:13:16.680the father was was really pushing and and like you said uh you know the father brought um according
00:13:22.260to all of the notes from the judgment or the and and the the justice does a really good job of of
00:13:28.060really showing what his his assessment was of everything the father brought um like you said
00:13:36.340websites from the government uh you know uh cdc thing things like that to to argue his point that
00:13:43.540this is what's in the best interest of my children. But the mother also brought what the
00:13:48.860justice said was very credible information that wasn't something that he could just discredit.
00:13:55.360And one of the documents that she used was Pfizer's own adverse events report that has been
00:14:03.060circulating now for a few months that shows there are a number of possible side effects or issues
00:14:12.480that a person can face from these, including everything from an allergic reaction to myocarditis
00:14:18.480and some of the other risks associated. The mother said in her argument that she didn't
00:14:25.860believe that the children were at a very great risk from COVID itself, and therefore the risk
00:14:32.480of the vaccination potentially was greater than the risk of COVID, the actual disease for the
00:14:39.100children. And what I appreciated was that the justice sort of took time to map out how
00:14:46.020the father really then just chose to try to vilify and cancel her and her assessment by bringing
00:14:56.080forward a whole bunch of social media posts that she had, tying her affiliation to the People's
00:15:02.140Party of Canada and what the People's Party of Canada's opinion is on, you know, the vaccine
00:15:07.960mandates and whatnot, and sort of chose to try to socially discredit her in the court's eye.
00:15:16.140That I found, for him to call that out, I found very interesting.
00:15:21.380Well, it's actually great that he did so because, you know, with the rulings to date up until this
00:15:29.420case in Canada, that's exactly what we were hearing from these justices.
00:15:36.440You know, when we talked about the case where I represented the dad who didn't want to have his children vaccinated yet, he wanted the court to wait.
00:15:48.520He wanted he wanted the court to decide to wait for further information.
00:15:53.020He wasn't an anti-vaxxer, you know, and his children, you know, had had previous vaccinations.
00:15:59.940and um really the the the evidence that we had put forward was look at there are some serious
00:16:06.940concerns that have come to light from multiple people experts um disciplines saying that you
00:16:17.060know this is not there and even the own government um information uh which is also set out in this
00:16:24.280judgment that highlights well there is risk and so it's very dangerous where our society has gone
00:16:31.880with this issue because people simply want to have the information and they want to be able
00:16:40.840to decide for themselves what to put into their body and this is a long-standing principle you
00:16:47.480know you know it dates back for a long time including the nuremberg code you know which
00:16:53.240required informed consent required you can't you can't experiment on a population or any person
00:17:01.080without their consent you know and and so instead of um and so when people embrace this sort of
00:17:10.200value system which i think is a great value system to ascribe to um these people are vilified because
00:17:18.120they simply have taken a different point of view and then the cancel culture of our time
00:17:24.800just will say these buzzwords such as conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxer
00:17:33.340and then it effectively is a mic drop and and it's astonishing that those sorts of
00:17:42.160inflammatory unhelpful statements can be used to discredit people who have legitimate concerns
00:17:51.280about what has gone on what is in what are in these vaccines what are the true side effects
00:17:57.760and it really should be up to the individual person to weigh the risk for themselves you know
00:18:04.000these these um the information published by these pharmaceutical companies and the governments
00:18:11.280they all speak to there is a risk now they've categorized it as there's a minimum risk or
00:18:18.880whatever but in this climate right now we're not even allowed to have a fulsome conversation with
00:18:25.920our doctor because the doc the colleges of um of of physician and surgeons across the country
00:18:34.080you know basically put a gag order um on all doctors and you know you can't get an exemption
00:18:41.280You know, so there's no wonder that there's, you know, people's spidey senses, of course, ring when they're being forced to do something when there's clearly, clearly a different opinion about what is going on and what is and whether or not these vaccines are safe and effective.
00:19:00.440Well, and it's interesting, too, that you mentioned that because, you know, some of the first communications in this judgment from the justice say, when did it become illegal to ask questions, especially in the courtroom?
00:19:14.020You know, the second thing he says is, and when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers, especially when children's lives are at stake?
00:19:24.020those are those are big questions for a justice to feel the need to ask at this stage of the game
00:19:33.100and i and i'm i'm glad he did um how did we lower our guard and let the words unacceptable beliefs
00:19:40.860get paired together you know this is uh you know in the the very first words out of his mouth
00:19:48.380should judges sit back as the concept of judicial notice gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to
00:19:56.140a substitute for evidence like it's you know these are these are really paramount and and again I'm
00:20:03.220I'm going to recommend I've I've put together a bit of a summary on the website but I do also
00:20:08.960have a link on our website as well to the full ruling and you know it seems very candid this
00:20:16.460ruling is very candid and and is it normal is is seeing a judge communicate like this in a in a
00:20:24.940ruling in a in a judgment is that normal well i certainly i don't know if it would be normal but
00:20:32.620certainly judges do you know have been known i think you know i can't point to a specific case
00:20:40.780off the top of my head right now but you know to to weigh in on and provide their um their
00:20:48.220perspective on things and i think that this is what what you see in this judgment here that these
00:20:54.460questions i mean quite often we you know we all have our own opinions about things but what i
00:21:00.460like about this approach is that uh these questions are designed to to get people to
00:21:07.820reconsider or think about think about these these questions from from a point that perhaps they had
00:21:16.300not considered before and maybe just relied too much on mainstream media and government rhetoric
00:21:25.500well and looking at line 17 and 18 sort of this is where where the justice is talking a little
00:21:32.220bit about the the evidence that's been provided and he points out that the mother's evidence
00:21:37.580focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues and this is where he points out in contrast
00:21:42.620the father focused extensively on labeling and discrediting the mother as a person in a dismissive
00:21:49.580attempt to argue that her views aren't worthy of consideration i mean and then and then he goes
00:21:56.700into sort of itemizing a few things here on on you know uh talking about this being an odious trend
00:22:05.100rapidly corrupting modern social discourse, ridicule and stigmatizing your opponent as a
00:22:11.540person rather than dealing with the ideas they want to talk about. It seems to be working for
00:22:17.420politicians, he says. I mean, this is, you know, this is almost like a snapshot of where our
00:22:25.640society has gone and he's just calling it out. Yeah, he nails it. And, you know, and I think
00:22:33.060it's it's something that we've been waiting for i know as a lawyer um it's been two long years of
00:22:41.040reading judgments um obviously that haven't gone in the favor of people um who are who are fighting
00:22:48.100these mandates and so this is a breath of fresh air to hear a justice come out ask these questions
00:22:56.040and make this commentary um about the state of our world and and i you know i think that he is
00:23:01.720bang on you know we've we've become a society where it privately and in public people are allowed
00:23:09.080are are so afraid to have a conversation because they don't want to say the wrong thing or get
00:23:14.760cancelled because the woke culture is so fast to jump on people and instead of
00:23:23.800debating the ideas they attack the person and that's just the that's just the go-to um
00:23:31.720um that's just the go-to strategy for for this entire group of people and it's it you know you
00:23:39.160contrast this with my case that i argued uh last year for the dad and you know my client um because
00:23:48.120he just wanted to wait and see notwithstanding we provided very good evidence um from a myriad
00:23:54.120of sources including government sources and pointing out the fact that the own government's
00:23:59.800information notes that there are risks to, to receiving this COVID-19 vaccination.
00:24:07.060And it didn't matter, you know, like the same document that said it was safe and effective
00:24:22.840And the mass hysteria of the COVID fear has had clearly and has clearly impacted people's perceptions, people's ability to have logical, logical opinions that may differ from other people.
00:24:42.280And as a result of what occurred in my case, my client, you know, was obviously denied any decision making with respect to the COVID-19 vaccination for his children and also was denied all health care decision making authority ultimately with respect to the children based on the premise that he was an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist.
00:25:07.480and right and you know it is deflating and what the courts um up until this ruling you know seem
00:25:16.440to have lost all humanity like um you know these are real people and these children's lives do all
00:25:24.440matter and and their voices matter as well and they all too deserve um to have as much information
00:25:32.280as possible and the right to say, no, this does not get to be put in my body and, or I want to
00:25:38.640wait until further evidence is available before I agree to something like this. Well, and especially
00:25:44.120for the children's sake, simply because, you know, there was a significant amount of data and study
00:25:52.380already, you know, coming out with regard to vaccinating adults, but it was a very short and
00:25:59.560it seemed to me a very small study for the outcome of vaccinating children and so you know i could
00:26:07.880understand a parent's desire to want to wait and just wait and see um what any sort of longer term
00:26:16.520effects might be uh so you're right i feel like there was um well and i i recall when we were
00:26:25.480discussing your case the verbiage the sort of the narrative from the justice in your case versus
00:26:32.920this one polar opposite just very different can you speak to that a little bit well it is and
00:26:40.360but that's what we were hearing across the country because that's what the mainstream media and
00:26:44.280government was saying and it was almost like this this sort of anger that um animosity towards other
00:26:52.840people who you know had taken the time to do other research that wasn't just provided by you know cbc
00:27:00.760or on the health canada website or the government of alberta website they did a little bit more
00:27:07.000digging and then found some really good information like some of the information that we presented was
00:27:12.040from the american college of physicians and surgeons which did speak to the pfizer study
00:27:17.240with respect to whether or not um um it was big enough and and and like as far as the study
00:27:26.200in terms of the participants in the study and also said you know it was too small of a study
00:27:31.960the the children were only um followed for two months and then and then basically uh you know
00:27:39.980it was approved in in Canada and notwithstanding that there were clearly signs where you know the
00:27:48.700own government information said you know further studies are ongoing because we do not know the
00:27:55.020long-term effects of this I mean so for for anybody including a justice just to take the
00:28:03.460government at its word and what the other good thing about this ruling is that the justice
00:28:08.560talks about the many instances in our history where the government's got it wrong yeah you know
00:28:16.340I did notice that too kind of further down in the document uh there were a lot of cases that
00:28:22.440this justice cited and and pointed to saying we can't just always assume that what the government
00:28:32.580is is communicating is you know gospel is absolutely bang on right exactly page 20
00:28:40.920um uh was it page yeah he he discussed uh paragraph 67 why should we be so reluctant to
00:28:48.740take judicial notice that the government is always right you know and he he talks about
00:28:53.620residential school systems for decades the government's assured us that taking the0.99
00:28:58.520Indigenous children away and being willfully blind to their abuse was the right thing to do.
00:29:04.220What line are you on? We'll just make sure we're on the right line.1.00
00:29:07.860Paragraph 67 sub B. Okay. You know, we're still finding children's bodies. How about sterilizing
00:29:15.560Eskimo women? The same thing. The government knew best. D. Japanese and Chinese internment camps1.00
00:29:22.900during world war ii the government told us it was an emergency and had to be done or emergencies can
00:29:29.380be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong how about
00:29:34.180thalidomide it was experimental drug approved by canada and countries throughout the world in the
00:29:41.160late 1950s you know was supposed to treat cancer and some skin conditions instead it caused these
00:29:47.700birth defects and dead babies you know and he goes on and on you know like and look at how many other
00:29:54.780you know your doctor used to recommend that smoking a pack of cigarettes wouldn't be dangerous
00:29:59.920to your health you know stress right exactly you know we used to use cocaine in our in our food
00:30:07.300products so and our cough syrups yeah exactly right so you know the hysteria the fear-mongering
00:30:16.240and the government did a really good job of it and the media helped them right there was one
00:30:21.060narrative and that was the only thing that was going to be played um on the tv and in your radios
00:30:26.060on social media 24 7 and and it did a really good job at um convincing people that this
00:30:35.560you know that believing anything different than what the government said um you know was just
00:30:43.080wrong and you know we've seen in the past week a couple of weeks specifically with justin trudeau's
00:30:51.100invoking of the emergencies act and then and then and then canceling that you know two days after
00:30:57.580two days yeah you know like you know it is um anybody who's a logical critical thinker
00:31:06.180must be scratching their head right now saying what just happened and you know what the ramifications
00:31:12.720of that little exercise temper tantrum that the prime minister has gone through um and put us all
00:31:19.300Canadians through allowed for significant changes to our banking and finance system which allowed
00:31:26.620that must be dealt with I mean this is it looks like those are it looks like they're planning to
00:31:31.680try to keep those I mean to be honest with you I uh I've been given a um uh a kind of an update
00:31:41.320for RBC and it is an update on their policy and how the wording for certain policy is changing.
00:31:52.020And it seems to be tied to this. It's a very recent change to their wording where
00:31:57.640they can now discern whether they're going to drop your credit based on more than just your
00:32:05.980sort of credit activity or your banking activity. They can base it on whether you're somehow
00:32:11.080a threat to them, or you're somehow going to, you know, it seems like they're looking at this
00:32:16.760social, you know, what are you doing socially that could affect your credit rating? And it
00:32:24.760looks like they're implementing this stuff now. Yeah, these conspiracy theories, like the social
00:32:29.580credit system being brought to Canada aren't necessarily theories anymore. We're seeing it
00:32:34.220play out in real time. And we should all be concerned about that as citizens, because,
00:32:38.980I mean, just because I have a different opinion from you, does that mean that I shouldn't be able to access my bank account?
00:32:48.040And that's effectively what the federal government has done.
00:32:53.220I haven't heard of any provincial premier or any other MLA or MP, except for perhaps a few in the conservative ranks, speak out against this.
00:33:04.840It is dangerous and it must be dealt with.
00:33:08.100And, you know, hopefully this will be challenged in the courtrooms and or upon re-election, you know, the new politicians then will see fit to change this dark period of our history.
00:33:28.180Well, and some of the other comments that I wanted to just highlight from this justice's
00:33:34.740ruling here, this stood out to me. We'll go to line 20 in the ruling.
00:33:42.500You know, this is after he has sort of gone over, the justice has gone over some of the ways that
00:33:50.260the father had tried to sort of vilify or discredit the mother. And the first thing he says
00:33:59.300after that is, how is any of this relevant? He says, have we reached the stage where parental
00:34:05.380rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to? Is being seen
00:34:11.620with Maxine Bernier or anyone for that matter, the kiss of death as far as your court case is
00:34:17.700concerned i mean you know this is this language is really interesting and powerful when when we're
00:34:25.540talking about you know later in the in the ruling he he basically lays out what the courts are here
00:34:32.420for what we're not he he lays it out i am not here to judge whether this vaccine is safe or not i am
00:34:41.780not here to judge whether these parents are good parents or not uh you know and and sort of gets
00:34:48.020to the root of it i am here to to uh contribute to the decision of what is in the best interest
00:34:55.620of these children and you know it's it is refreshing to see a judgment that seems to
00:35:06.100more so take on a rational view and a realistic view from both both points right from both sides
00:35:16.900not discrediting one side right off the hop you know um and and coming at it like i remember with
00:35:23.700your with your case coming at it with this idea of you know well of course this is in the best
00:35:29.620interest of of the children because this is what the government says we need to do to be safe
00:35:35.060Well, let's just think about this practically in the timeline. Okay. So last fall, we have these mandates kind of roll out across the country that you need to have this vaccine by a certain date, or you're going to be fired. You know, people who are vax free aren't able to travel internationally within Canada, we can't get on a plane, for instance, you know, there's court challenges with that.
00:36:03.400And so this thing plays out the government, you know, you know, pushes and then extends deadlines, you know, basically scares all private companies and business to follow suit. And in implementing these vaccination policies across their board, they fire employees as a result, they change the structure of their what their office looks like.
00:36:28.620And so this started to occur in October, November. And then we have all of a sudden in February that they're done, you know, in Alberta that Jason Kenney says, OK, we're not going to have these vaccine passports anymore.
00:36:46.800um wow i mean if i was a business in alberta that had to jump through all of these hoops
00:36:54.640by a really good employees and contractors because of these government mandates and now
00:37:01.760they're not required any longer i mean or how about or how about the businesses that
00:37:08.800had to shut their doors for good well exactly more so than the ones that had to you know jump hoops
00:37:15.760but lost everything well exactly and and some of the you know the some of the things that were
00:37:24.300mandatory people I guess were thinking were going to last forever and now that now they're not
00:37:30.440mandatory although Jason Kenney has made it very clear that businesses can make their own
00:37:35.760discriminatory discriminatory practices and policies as they see fit and and then I put
00:37:42.400the question out to the public, based on what? If the government has sought fit to remove these
00:37:50.160mandates, upon which basis are they relying to continue these sort of discriminatory practices
00:37:57.600in their own companies and in schools or wherever they may continue? Because allowing companies to
00:38:05.940do this in my opinion is just simply wrong and it sets a dangerous precedent and in fact what
00:38:13.620what people what the government has done in alberta for instance you know by allowing these
00:38:19.300businesses and other institutions to continue mandates such as this as they see fit it is going
00:38:27.940to continue to divide our population and it's in it it is in fact promoting discrimination
00:38:35.620and for these people who claim that equity inclusivity and diversity is all about you
00:38:41.540know you know getting to the root of systemic racism well they're not doing a really good job
00:38:48.020living by their own principles because in fact what they're doing is advocating discrimination
00:38:54.740one thing i wanted to point out too at the very end of the ruling or the judgment from the justice
00:39:03.220uh the post script i found that um you know interesting and worthwhile mentioning here he
00:39:09.620says uh it's irrelevant to my decision and it's none of anyone's business but i am fully vaccinated
00:39:16.180my choice i mention this because i am acutely aware of how polarized the world has become
00:39:23.060we should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one another
00:39:29.140i i i really respect that sort of final statement because i think it does it does give a little bit
00:39:36.660more context to people this isn't you know a a judge who somebody can just turn around and say
00:39:42.420well you know anti-vax judge would of course rule like this we can't say that now so um i i actually
00:39:50.180really do appreciate although it was no one's business i really do appreciate that he included
00:39:54.340that yeah it is nice it is nice because it really um just throws um water on the fire
00:40:01.940on the anti-vax fire narrative right because this is this has never been about about the vaccine
00:40:09.620it's always been about personal choice and the the um the left and the media have done such a
00:40:16.900a great inner governments have done such a great job to try to convince people that you know like
00:40:23.900I said earlier that you're some sort of you know cozy crackpot whack job if you have a different
00:40:29.280opinion but this has always been about choice and about personal freedoms and and I think what this
00:40:35.440judge highlights for everybody is that we have beard far off course in many areas not just in
00:40:45.260our courts but you know in many other areas of our society and it's about time that we all level up
00:40:52.300and start having the conversations about the issues and stop attacking people for uh their
00:40:58.480opinions and what it is that they believe and that we respect um other people's rights to have an
00:41:05.320opinion and to voice it and um and that we are entitled to full disclosure from our governments
00:41:12.780our governments um work for us and that's that it's not trite it's very important that we as a
00:41:20.540society get this because we've developed into a society in my opinion where we look to the
00:41:27.180government as some sort of parental figure to tell us when it's right and wrong to do whatever whatever
00:41:33.740in our lives. And that, in my opinion, is just wrong. They are there as a utility for the
00:41:42.880citizens in which they are elected to govern. They are to implement the voice and the will of
00:41:49.740the people. And they have failed miserably. And if anything, the trucker's convoy has highlighted
00:41:57.620that in like neon lights for the world to see exactly what happens when we bestow all of our
00:42:08.000faith, all of our decision-making abilities with these governments. One last question before I let
00:42:16.680you go, Catherine, is do you see this ruling, this judgment as precedent setting? I mean,
00:42:23.720Because I understand that's how a lot of laws are judged, is based on other rulings.
00:42:32.560It will form part of the precedence, particularly so in Ontario, for other justices to consider when they're faced with a similar fact scenario and this becomes relevant.
00:42:49.360In other provinces, provinces typically look to their own jurisdictions rulings first, but, you know, clearly consider other cases that are decided in Canada and even throughout the world.
00:43:04.800I mean, it's about being the trier of fact as a judge, and you look at all of the evidence presented, and you look at whether or not what sort of weight should be attributed to the evidence presented, and then you make your decision based on the totality of evidence and as it applies to that particular fact scenario.
00:43:27.480And so I am hopeful and maybe this will allow other justices who have been silent, maybe also thinking the same thing, but have just haven't had the opportunity to have a case where they're able to decide something like this in this manner.
00:43:46.580But maybe this will give them the courage that they maybe didn't have also in future rulings.
00:43:56.700And, you know, and maybe this is a commentary that, you know, again, the people are rising up.
00:44:02.780We are becoming more and more wise to these antics, tyrannical antics in this division that the governments are causing.
00:44:11.940And the tide is changing. And so I think it's very astute for this justice, whether or not he felt this way all along or not, that he had enough courage to come and present this judgment in the manner that he did.
00:44:33.780Well, it is an impressive judgment, a lengthy one, and definitely, like I say, well worth
00:44:41.060looking into and reading. Again, I've got a highlight of some of the judgment on the website,
00:44:47.180as well as a link to the full judgment. Catherine Qualchuk, thank you so much for joining us,
00:44:53.300again, with Goetz, Collins & Associates. She's a Calgary lawyer and also works for Lawyers for
00:44:59.420truth. Thank you so much for your assessment of this judgment. And we will keep in touch and I
00:45:06.040guess watch how this may start affecting things down the line. Great. Thank you, Melanie, for
00:45:11.620having me today. Algodex is owned by Algonaut. This is great new technology just coming online now
00:45:20.240in the digital currency world. Algodex is a great way for you to use the digital currency Algorand