Western Standard - WATCH： Calgary lawyer commends ruling denying parent-forced COVID vax for kids

00:00:00.000 Good evening. I'm Melanie Rizdin with the Western Standard. Joining me tonight is

00:00:12.600 Catherine Kowalchuk. She is a Calgary lawyer with Goetz Collins and Associates. She's also

00:00:18.160 a lawyer with Lawyers for Truth. And we're talking with Catherine tonight because we did

00:00:24.580 have a chat with Catherine about a month or two ago and Catherine was representing a client who

00:00:31.620 was seeking to have his children not vaccinated and that court case turned out very differently

00:00:39.700 from one that was just settled in an Ontario court on Tuesday. So we thought we would chat

00:00:45.380 with Catherine a little bit about this new ruling and just get some insight from her as a lawyer and

00:00:53.860 look at some comparisons to the the court case that she dealt with. So thanks for joining us

00:00:59.760 Catherine. Thanks Melanie for having me. So this is a very interesting ruling. I have read through

00:01:07.420 the judge's entire judgment on this and it's incredible. Why don't you fill us in a little bit?

00:01:16.240 Yeah it is incredible. I first received this this morning and you know right from the get-go I was

00:01:23.840 pleasantly surprised by the questions that this justice was asking uh in particular um i mean all

00:01:31.120 of them were great throughout the judgment but what i you know let's just focus on a few of them

00:01:37.040 if you if you would on the first page at line five paragraph five um the justice talks about

00:01:45.200 misinformation and is this even a real word he says or has it become a crass self-serving tool

00:01:52.800 to preempt scrutiny and discredit your opponent to lead delegitimize questions and strategically

00:01:58.960 avoid giving answers blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system

00:02:05.120 each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet misinformation in quotes has crept

00:02:11.200 into the court lexicon um other other questions that i um like in his ruling include on paragraph

00:02:21.840 20 on page five you know at sub at sub paragraph d he says can you simply utter the words conspiracy

00:02:31.040 theorists and do a mic drop you know those are two instances of um very good questions

00:02:37.920 in this ruling that I think we've been lacking for two years not only in our courts but in public

00:02:46.320 discourse and with our politicians and so it is a refreshing decision it seems to me to be very

00:02:54.400 reasonable very logical and it highlights very good points that other justices across Canada have

00:03:04.800 simply ignored or disregarded in their rulings um and one of one of the things that this case

00:03:12.160 highlights is the importance of having the decisions voices with respect to these health

00:03:18.240 care decisions and the justice talks about that and i'm happy to see that because you know we

00:03:24.880 have we all have bodily autonomy and our children may be you know little um but they are they are

00:03:32.400 important and their their voices in this are integral um unfortunately you know we're not

00:03:39.120 all able to get informed consent because we know that the information has been lacking it's been

00:03:45.840 sparse people who have who have questioned the narrative of the the efficacy of the vaccines

00:03:51.840 have been cancelled or vilified in the media and amongst peers and colleagues families and friends

00:03:59.760 and um and the other thing that this case highlights which is great is um the justice's 0.98

00:04:08.680 review of judicial notice um what i also think of what is great about this is that a self-represented

00:04:16.320 party the mom presented this to this court and um i just i just love the fact that she

00:04:22.880 was self-represented oh so she didn't even have a lawyer no she oh wow it would seem by this

00:04:29.240 judgment to be very professional and the judge was obviously persuaded by the information and

00:04:35.560 the evidence that she provided which is set out in this judgment for everybody to read and I

00:04:40.220 encourage everybody to read it because these are really good points that he brings out but

00:04:44.460 you know he makes the point you know judicial notice has been something that these justices

00:04:49.780 across Canada and Alberta and certainly in my case that they've relied upon in making their

00:04:55.360 rulings with respect to these COVID mandates, right from the Court of Queen's

00:05:00.040 Bench in Manitoba, Ontario, BC and Alberta, and others, the Saskatchewan as well.

00:05:06.280 So, and what judicial notice is, is that something is so notoriously known, that

00:05:13.300 basically, you don't need to provide any evidence of the fact that it exists, right.

00:05:20.020 and we've had a lot of problems with this notion because obviously the information and the evidence

00:05:28.540 has been lacking from the governments and and it seems just to be something that is just well you

00:05:34.500 better take us at our word and and then that's and that's the end of the conversation of course

00:05:40.660 that's not the end of the conversation and what I like about I'm sorry I'm just flipping through

00:05:45.700 the ruling right now but what I like about this ruling at page 19 um paragraph 59 is that you'll

00:05:54.460 see um at 58 and 59 um is that the justice clearly states that you know judicial notice cannot be

00:06:02.140 taken of expert opinion evidence and he goes on to distinguish this what is a fact in what is an

00:06:09.620 opinion. And he basically likens what the government has determined to be safe and effective

00:06:17.180 as an opinion. Therefore, it's inappropriate to take judicial notice. Therefore, it's incumbent

00:06:24.080 upon these governments and parties relying on this COVID narrative that they have to provide

00:06:32.380 expert evidence. They have to provide legitimate evidence to support their position.

00:06:37.060 And 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.

00:06:58.520 Judicial notice cannot be taken of the opinion of any expert or government official that a medical treatment is safe and effective.

00:07:08.020 that's a mic drop maybe that's a mic drop um you know so i think that it's um

00:07:16.260 it's welcome news not only in the area of family law of course because this is a very contentious

00:07:20.980 issue but this is i'm sure all the other lawyers who are bringing me have been bringing these court

00:07:26.420 challenges across the country will um find this case particularly welcome and you know to talk

00:07:34.420 about these cases i mean they i have to understand and you've been through it you've you've uh

00:07:40.580 supported a client through this uh it's it's a difficult place to be in when you are talking

00:07:45.940 about two parents who have very differing views on specifically a medical treatment uh for like

00:07:54.020 you said you know children uh people children who are typically not looked on to have to make their

00:08:00.420 own decisions and make these calls for themselves right and of course we as parents we're always

00:08:06.580 working in the best interest of what we believe is right for our children and is in their best

00:08:13.300 interest but you know the the fact that these two parents come to come you know to head on this

00:08:20.260 this discussion has got to be very hard to begin with and and as a judge trying to discern you know

00:08:27.540 what i appreciate about this judge's ruling is that uh that he went into it went into depth

00:08:34.820 with the children as well spoke to the children and we're not talking very very young children i

00:08:39.300 believe uh they were around 10 uh 12 years old in in this uh in this case yeah so we're not we're

00:08:46.660 not talking you know three four five year olds but um you know the the interesting thing that

00:08:52.660 I found with this justice is that the children were asked, what do you feel? What do you want?

00:09:00.200 And they said unequivocally, one of the children spoke unequivocally and said they wanted the

00:09:05.360 justice to know and understand they had a great fear of getting this injection. And to ignore

00:09:13.940 that and rule in a parent's favor to allow the parent to have the child injected, this

00:09:23.100 justice said, I believe that would cause quite a bit of emotional harm to the child.

00:09:30.880 I think that's an important thing to be weighing here as well.

00:09:35.460 Well, it is very important.

00:09:37.860 But the test in family law with respect to these issues is what is in the best interest

00:09:43.340 of the child and you know it's set out in our legislation in the divorce act for instance

00:09:48.540 um and so really um what this judge has said in this ruling is very important not only do choice

00:09:58.700 the children's voice matter but you know it it underpins uh you know a bigger problem that we've

00:10:06.300 all been facing the past few years in particular that if you have a different opinion than automatic

00:10:13.180 than the government or than the media then you're automatically some sort of crackpot conspiracy

00:10:19.420 theorist anti-vaxxer nutcase and that's simply not the case and what's nice and refreshing about

00:10:26.540 this judgment as well is that he was he looked at the mom's evidence and and you know in family

00:10:34.780 law it's difficult because in these sorts of applications not there's not necessarily expert

00:10:40.940 evidence that you you know that you would typically have in maybe a longer trial for instance

00:10:46.060 uh or witness testimony so the the app the information provided was by way of affidavit

00:10:51.980 and you know and so hiring experts is you know expensive etc etc and there's not the opportunity

00:10:59.900 in these cases to do a cross-examination of these experts nonetheless the judge makes the point that

00:11:06.540 yes it's you know it's up to the justice or the judge hearing the matter to decide whether or

00:11:12.380 not it's material and relevant the information that was provided and in this case the justice

00:11:18.940 was very mindful and considerate of the of the information that the mum was providing which is

00:11:24.860 contrary to what the government narrative is and that's important because that that alone in and

00:11:33.020 of itself highlights the point that this issue is not settled and so notoriously known as to be able

00:11:39.980 to decide definitively that the COVID-19 is safe and effective. Not only that, he also makes the

00:11:49.420 point that we cannot, and I don't think he says this directly, but it's implied, we cannot

00:11:57.020 broadly based this sort of policy to apply to all children. When the test that the court goes through

00:12:07.060 is what is in the best interest of this particular child.

00:12:12.460 That's right. And so for this case particularly, just to highlight it, and I will have

00:12:19.620 sort of some points from the judgment on the story on the website for you to, and I will also

00:12:27.260 have a link to the full judgment for people to read for themselves. And I highly recommend you

00:12:31.600 do because I really appreciate the, you know, the full picture that this judge paints of this kind

00:12:41.380 of situation that we're facing in Canada and across the world. But this is two parents. This

00:12:46.940 is a mother and a father who have three children uh the mother is uh sorry sort of primary guardian

00:12:54.100 or custody has primary custody of of two of the younger children where the father has primary

00:12:59.920 care for uh an older child now the older child chose said they wanted to get vaccinated and did

00:13:06.420 uh but the younger children who are under the mother's care uh did not want to get vaccinated

00:13:12.000 nor did the mother want them to get vaccinated and that's where the sort of fight ensued was

00:13:16.680 the father was was really pushing and and like you said uh you know the father brought um according

00:13:22.260 to all of the notes from the judgment or the and and the the justice does a really good job of of

00:13:28.060 really showing what his his assessment was of everything the father brought um like you said

00:13:36.340 websites from the government uh you know uh cdc thing things like that to to argue his point that

00:13:43.540 this is what's in the best interest of my children. But the mother also brought what the

00:13:48.860 justice said was very credible information that wasn't something that he could just discredit.

00:13:55.360 And one of the documents that she used was Pfizer's own adverse events report that has been

00:14:03.060 circulating now for a few months that shows there are a number of possible side effects or issues

00:14:12.480 that a person can face from these, including everything from an allergic reaction to myocarditis

00:14:18.480 and some of the other risks associated. The mother said in her argument that she didn't

00:14:25.860 believe that the children were at a very great risk from COVID itself, and therefore the risk

00:14:32.480 of the vaccination potentially was greater than the risk of COVID, the actual disease for the

00:14:39.100 children. And what I appreciated was that the justice sort of took time to map out how

00:14:46.020 the father really then just chose to try to vilify and cancel her and her assessment by bringing

00:14:56.080 forward a whole bunch of social media posts that she had, tying her affiliation to the People's

00:15:02.140 Party of Canada and what the People's Party of Canada's opinion is on, you know, the vaccine

00:15:07.960 mandates and whatnot, and sort of chose to try to socially discredit her in the court's eye.

00:15:16.140 That I found, for him to call that out, I found very interesting.

00:15:21.380 Well, it's actually great that he did so because, you know, with the rulings to date up until this

00:15:29.420 case in Canada, that's exactly what we were hearing from these justices.

00:15:36.440 You 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.

00:15:48.520 He wanted he wanted the court to decide to wait for further information.

00:15:53.020 He wasn't an anti-vaxxer, you know, and his children, you know, had had previous vaccinations.

00:15:59.940 and um really the the the evidence that we had put forward was look at there are some serious

00:16:06.940 concerns that have come to light from multiple people experts um disciplines saying that you

00:16:17.060 know this is not there and even the own government um information uh which is also set out in this

00:16:24.280 judgment that highlights well there is risk and so it's very dangerous where our society has gone

00:16:31.880 with this issue because people simply want to have the information and they want to be able

00:16:40.840 to decide for themselves what to put into their body and this is a long-standing principle you

00:16:47.480 know you know it dates back for a long time including the nuremberg code you know which

00:16:53.240 required informed consent required you can't you can't experiment on a population or any person

00:17:01.080 without their consent you know and and so instead of um and so when people embrace this sort of

00:17:10.200 value system which i think is a great value system to ascribe to um these people are vilified because

00:17:18.120 they simply have taken a different point of view and then the cancel culture of our time

00:17:24.800 just will say these buzzwords such as conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxer

00:17:33.340 and then it effectively is a mic drop and and it's astonishing that those sorts of

00:17:42.160 inflammatory unhelpful statements can be used to discredit people who have legitimate concerns

00:17:51.280 about what has gone on what is in what are in these vaccines what are the true side effects

00:17:57.760 and it really should be up to the individual person to weigh the risk for themselves you know

00:18:04.000 these these um the information published by these pharmaceutical companies and the governments

00:18:11.280 they all speak to there is a risk now they've categorized it as there's a minimum risk or

00:18:18.880 whatever but in this climate right now we're not even allowed to have a fulsome conversation with

00:18:25.920 our doctor because the doc the colleges of um of of physician and surgeons across the country

00:18:34.080 you know basically put a gag order um on all doctors and you know you can't get an exemption

00:18:41.280 You 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.

00:19:00.440 Well, 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?

00:19:14.020 You 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?

00:19:24.020 those are those are big questions for a justice to feel the need to ask at this stage of the game

00:19:33.100 and i and i'm i'm glad he did um how did we lower our guard and let the words unacceptable beliefs

00:19:40.860 get paired together you know this is uh you know in the the very first words out of his mouth

00:19:48.380 should judges sit back as the concept of judicial notice gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to

00:19:56.140 a substitute for evidence like it's you know these are these are really paramount and and again I'm

00:20:03.220 I'm going to recommend I've I've put together a bit of a summary on the website but I do also

00:20:08.960 have a link on our website as well to the full ruling and you know it seems very candid this

00:20:16.460 ruling is very candid and and is it normal is is seeing a judge communicate like this in a in a

00:20:24.940 ruling in a in a judgment is that normal well i certainly i don't know if it would be normal but

00:20:32.620 certainly judges do you know have been known i think you know i can't point to a specific case

00:20:40.780 off the top of my head right now but you know to to weigh in on and provide their um their

00:20:48.220 perspective on things and i think that this is what what you see in this judgment here that these

00:20:54.460 questions i mean quite often we you know we all have our own opinions about things but what i

00:21:00.460 like about this approach is that uh these questions are designed to to get people to

00:21:07.820 reconsider or think about think about these these questions from from a point that perhaps they had

00:21:16.300 not considered before and maybe just relied too much on mainstream media and government rhetoric

00:21:25.500 well and looking at line 17 and 18 sort of this is where where the justice is talking a little

00:21:32.220 bit about the the evidence that's been provided and he points out that the mother's evidence

00:21:37.580 focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues and this is where he points out in contrast

00:21:42.620 the father focused extensively on labeling and discrediting the mother as a person in a dismissive

00:21:49.580 attempt to argue that her views aren't worthy of consideration i mean and then and then he goes

00:21:56.700 into sort of itemizing a few things here on on you know uh talking about this being an odious trend

00:22:05.100 rapidly corrupting modern social discourse, ridicule and stigmatizing your opponent as a

00:22:11.540 person rather than dealing with the ideas they want to talk about. It seems to be working for

00:22:17.420 politicians, he says. I mean, this is, you know, this is almost like a snapshot of where our

00:22:25.640 society has gone and he's just calling it out. Yeah, he nails it. And, you know, and I think

00:22:33.060 it's it's something that we've been waiting for i know as a lawyer um it's been two long years of

00:22:41.040 reading judgments um obviously that haven't gone in the favor of people um who are who are fighting

00:22:48.100 these mandates and so this is a breath of fresh air to hear a justice come out ask these questions

00:22:56.040 and make this commentary um about the state of our world and and i you know i think that he is

00:23:01.720 bang on you know we've we've become a society where it privately and in public people are allowed

00:23:09.080 are are so afraid to have a conversation because they don't want to say the wrong thing or get

00:23:14.760 cancelled because the woke culture is so fast to jump on people and instead of

00:23:23.800 debating the ideas they attack the person and that's just the that's just the go-to um

00:23:31.720 um that's just the go-to strategy for for this entire group of people and it's it you know you

00:23:39.160 contrast this with my case that i argued uh last year for the dad and you know my client um because

00:23:48.120 he just wanted to wait and see notwithstanding we provided very good evidence um from a myriad

00:23:54.120 of sources including government sources and pointing out the fact that the own government's

00:23:59.800 information notes that there are risks to, to receiving this COVID-19 vaccination.

00:24:07.060 And it didn't matter, you know, like the same document that said it was safe and effective

00:24:11.300 also said that there were risks.

00:24:14.520 And so it was almost a cherry picking and it has been a cherry picking of which of the

00:24:20.420 evidence suits, suits the narrative.

00:24:22.840 And 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.

00:24:42.280 And 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.

00:25:07.480 and right and you know it is deflating and what the courts um up until this ruling you know seem

00:25:16.440 to have lost all humanity like um you know these are real people and these children's lives do all

00:25:24.440 matter and and their voices matter as well and they all too deserve um to have as much information

00:25:32.280 as possible and the right to say, no, this does not get to be put in my body and, or I want to

00:25:38.640 wait until further evidence is available before I agree to something like this. Well, and especially

00:25:44.120 for the children's sake, simply because, you know, there was a significant amount of data and study

00:25:52.380 already, you know, coming out with regard to vaccinating adults, but it was a very short and

00:25:59.560 it seemed to me a very small study for the outcome of vaccinating children and so you know i could

00:26:07.880 understand a parent's desire to want to wait and just wait and see um what any sort of longer term

00:26:16.520 effects might be uh so you're right i feel like there was um well and i i recall when we were

00:26:25.480 discussing your case the verbiage the sort of the narrative from the justice in your case versus

00:26:32.920 this one polar opposite just very different can you speak to that a little bit well it is and

00:26:40.360 but that's what we were hearing across the country because that's what the mainstream media and

00:26:44.280 government was saying and it was almost like this this sort of anger that um animosity towards other

00:26:52.840 people who you know had taken the time to do other research that wasn't just provided by you know cbc

00:27:00.760 or on the health canada website or the government of alberta website they did a little bit more

00:27:07.000 digging and then found some really good information like some of the information that we presented was

00:27:12.040 from the american college of physicians and surgeons which did speak to the pfizer study

00:27:17.240 with respect to whether or not um um it was big enough and and and like as far as the study

00:27:26.200 in terms of the participants in the study and also said you know it was too small of a study

00:27:31.960 the the children were only um followed for two months and then and then basically uh you know

00:27:39.980 it was approved in in Canada and notwithstanding that there were clearly signs where you know the

00:27:48.700 own government information said you know further studies are ongoing because we do not know the

00:27:55.020 long-term effects of this I mean so for for anybody including a justice just to take the

00:28:03.460 government at its word and what the other good thing about this ruling is that the justice

00:28:08.560 talks about the many instances in our history where the government's got it wrong yeah you know

00:28:16.340 I did notice that too kind of further down in the document uh there were a lot of cases that

00:28:22.440 this justice cited and and pointed to saying we can't just always assume that what the government

00:28:32.580 is is communicating is you know gospel is absolutely bang on right exactly page 20

00:28:40.920 um uh was it page yeah he he discussed uh paragraph 67 why should we be so reluctant to

00:28:48.740 take judicial notice that the government is always right you know and he he talks about

00:28:53.620 residential school systems for decades the government's assured us that taking the 0.99

00:28:58.520 Indigenous children away and being willfully blind to their abuse was the right thing to do.

00:29:04.220 What line are you on? We'll just make sure we're on the right line. 1.00

00:29:07.860 Paragraph 67 sub B. Okay. You know, we're still finding children's bodies. How about sterilizing

00:29:15.560 Eskimo women? The same thing. The government knew best. D. Japanese and Chinese internment camps 1.00

00:29:22.900 during world war ii the government told us it was an emergency and had to be done or emergencies can

00:29:29.380 be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong how about

00:29:34.180 thalidomide it was experimental drug approved by canada and countries throughout the world in the

00:29:41.160 late 1950s you know was supposed to treat cancer and some skin conditions instead it caused these

00:29:47.700 birth defects and dead babies you know and he goes on and on you know like and look at how many other

00:29:54.780 you know your doctor used to recommend that smoking a pack of cigarettes wouldn't be dangerous

00:29:59.920 to your health you know stress right exactly you know we used to use cocaine in our in our food

00:30:07.300 products so and our cough syrups yeah exactly right so you know the hysteria the fear-mongering

00:30:16.240 and the government did a really good job of it and the media helped them right there was one

00:30:21.060 narrative and that was the only thing that was going to be played um on the tv and in your radios

00:30:26.060 on social media 24 7 and and it did a really good job at um convincing people that this

00:30:35.560 you know that believing anything different than what the government said um you know was just

00:30:43.080 wrong and you know we've seen in the past week a couple of weeks specifically with justin trudeau's

00:30:51.100 invoking of the emergencies act and then and then and then canceling that you know two days after

00:30:57.580 two days yeah you know like you know it is um anybody who's a logical critical thinker

00:31:06.180 must be scratching their head right now saying what just happened and you know what the ramifications

00:31:12.720 of that little exercise temper tantrum that the prime minister has gone through um and put us all

00:31:19.300 Canadians through allowed for significant changes to our banking and finance system which allowed

00:31:26.620 that must be dealt with I mean this is it looks like those are it looks like they're planning to

00:31:31.680 try to keep those I mean to be honest with you I uh I've been given a um uh a kind of an update

00:31:41.320 for RBC and it is an update on their policy and how the wording for certain policy is changing.

00:31:52.020 And it seems to be tied to this. It's a very recent change to their wording where

00:31:57.640 they can now discern whether they're going to drop your credit based on more than just your

00:32:05.980 sort of credit activity or your banking activity. They can base it on whether you're somehow

00:32:11.080 a threat to them, or you're somehow going to, you know, it seems like they're looking at this

00:32:16.760 social, you know, what are you doing socially that could affect your credit rating? And it

00:32:24.760 looks like they're implementing this stuff now. Yeah, these conspiracy theories, like the social

00:32:29.580 credit system being brought to Canada aren't necessarily theories anymore. We're seeing it

00:32:34.220 play out in real time. And we should all be concerned about that as citizens, because,

00:32:38.980 I mean, just because I have a different opinion from you, does that mean that I shouldn't be able to access my bank account?

00:32:48.040 And that's effectively what the federal government has done.

00:32:52.180 And you know what?

00:32:53.220 I 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.

00:33:04.840 It is dangerous and it must be dealt with.

00:33:08.100 And, 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.

00:33:28.180 Well, and some of the other comments that I wanted to just highlight from this justice's

00:33:34.740 ruling here, this stood out to me. We'll go to line 20 in the ruling.

00:33:42.500 You know, this is after he has sort of gone over, the justice has gone over some of the ways that

00:33:50.260 the father had tried to sort of vilify or discredit the mother. And the first thing he says

00:33:59.300 after that is, how is any of this relevant? He says, have we reached the stage where parental

00:34:05.380 rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to? Is being seen

00:34:11.620 with Maxine Bernier or anyone for that matter, the kiss of death as far as your court case is

00:34:17.700 concerned i mean you know this is this language is really interesting and powerful when when we're

00:34:25.540 talking about you know later in the in the ruling he he basically lays out what the courts are here

00:34:32.420 for what we're not he he lays it out i am not here to judge whether this vaccine is safe or not i am

00:34:41.780 not here to judge whether these parents are good parents or not uh you know and and sort of gets

00:34:48.020 to the root of it i am here to to uh contribute to the decision of what is in the best interest

00:34:55.620 of these children and you know it's it is refreshing to see a judgment that seems to

00:35:06.100 more so take on a rational view and a realistic view from both both points right from both sides

00:35:16.900 not discrediting one side right off the hop you know um and and coming at it like i remember with

00:35:23.700 your with your case coming at it with this idea of you know well of course this is in the best

00:35:29.620 interest of of the children because this is what the government says we need to do to be safe

00:35:35.060 Well, 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.

00:36:03.400 And 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.

00:36:28.620 And 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.

00:36:46.800 um wow i mean if i was a business in alberta that had to jump through all of these hoops

00:36:54.640 by a really good employees and contractors because of these government mandates and now

00:37:01.760 they're not required any longer i mean or how about or how about the businesses that

00:37:08.800 had to shut their doors for good well exactly more so than the ones that had to you know jump hoops

00:37:15.760 but lost everything well exactly and and some of the you know the some of the things that were

00:37:24.300 mandatory people I guess were thinking were going to last forever and now that now they're not

00:37:30.440 mandatory although Jason Kenney has made it very clear that businesses can make their own

00:37:35.760 discriminatory discriminatory practices and policies as they see fit and and then I put

00:37:42.400 the question out to the public, based on what? If the government has sought fit to remove these

00:37:50.160 mandates, upon which basis are they relying to continue these sort of discriminatory practices

00:37:57.600 in their own companies and in schools or wherever they may continue? Because allowing companies to

00:38:05.940 do this in my opinion is just simply wrong and it sets a dangerous precedent and in fact what

00:38:13.620 what people what the government has done in alberta for instance you know by allowing these

00:38:19.300 businesses and other institutions to continue mandates such as this as they see fit it is going

00:38:27.940 to continue to divide our population and it's in it it is in fact promoting discrimination

00:38:35.620 and for these people who claim that equity inclusivity and diversity is all about you

00:38:41.540 know you know getting to the root of systemic racism well they're not doing a really good job

00:38:48.020 living by their own principles because in fact what they're doing is advocating discrimination

00:38:54.740 one thing i wanted to point out too at the very end of the ruling or the judgment from the justice

00:39:03.220 uh the post script i found that um you know interesting and worthwhile mentioning here he

00:39:09.620 says uh it's irrelevant to my decision and it's none of anyone's business but i am fully vaccinated

00:39:16.180 my choice i mention this because i am acutely aware of how polarized the world has become

00:39:23.060 we should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one another

00:39:29.140 i i i really respect that sort of final statement because i think it does it does give a little bit

00:39:36.660 more context to people this isn't you know a a judge who somebody can just turn around and say

00:39:42.420 well you know anti-vax judge would of course rule like this we can't say that now so um i i actually

00:39:50.180 really do appreciate although it was no one's business i really do appreciate that he included

00:39:54.340 that yeah it is nice it is nice because it really um just throws um water on the fire

00:40:01.940 on the anti-vax fire narrative right because this is this has never been about about the vaccine

00:40:09.620 it's always been about personal choice and the the um the left and the media have done such a

00:40:16.900 a great inner governments have done such a great job to try to convince people that you know like

00:40:23.900 I said earlier that you're some sort of you know cozy crackpot whack job if you have a different

00:40:29.280 opinion but this has always been about choice and about personal freedoms and and I think what this

00:40:35.440 judge highlights for everybody is that we have beard far off course in many areas not just in

00:40:45.260 our courts but you know in many other areas of our society and it's about time that we all level up

00:40:52.300 and start having the conversations about the issues and stop attacking people for uh their

00:40:58.480 opinions and what it is that they believe and that we respect um other people's rights to have an

00:41:05.320 opinion and to voice it and um and that we are entitled to full disclosure from our governments

00:41:12.780 our governments um work for us and that's that it's not trite it's very important that we as a

00:41:20.540 society get this because we've developed into a society in my opinion where we look to the

00:41:27.180 government as some sort of parental figure to tell us when it's right and wrong to do whatever whatever

00:41:33.740 in our lives. And that, in my opinion, is just wrong. They are there as a utility for the

00:41:42.880 citizens in which they are elected to govern. They are to implement the voice and the will of

00:41:49.740 the people. And they have failed miserably. And if anything, the trucker's convoy has highlighted

00:41:57.620 that in like neon lights for the world to see exactly what happens when we bestow all of our

00:42:08.000 faith, all of our decision-making abilities with these governments. One last question before I let

00:42:16.680 you go, Catherine, is do you see this ruling, this judgment as precedent setting? I mean,

00:42:23.720 Because I understand that's how a lot of laws are judged, is based on other rulings.

00:42:31.500 Well, it is.

00:42:32.560 It 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.

00:42:49.360 In 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.

00:43:04.800 I 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.

00:43:27.480 And 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.

00:43:46.580 But maybe this will give them the courage that they maybe didn't have also in future rulings.

00:43:56.700 And, you know, and maybe this is a commentary that, you know, again, the people are rising up.

00:44:02.780 We are becoming more and more wise to these antics, tyrannical antics in this division that the governments are causing.

00:44:11.940 And 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.

00:44:33.780 Well, it is an impressive judgment, a lengthy one, and definitely, like I say, well worth

00:44:41.060 looking into and reading. Again, I've got a highlight of some of the judgment on the website,

00:44:47.180 as well as a link to the full judgment. Catherine Qualchuk, thank you so much for joining us,

00:44:53.300 again, with Goetz, Collins & Associates. She's a Calgary lawyer and also works for Lawyers for

00:44:59.420 truth. Thank you so much for your assessment of this judgment. And we will keep in touch and I

00:45:06.040 guess watch how this may start affecting things down the line. Great. Thank you, Melanie, for

00:45:11.620 having me today. Algodex is owned by Algonaut. This is great new technology just coming online now

00:45:20.240 in the digital currency world. Algodex is a great way for you to use the digital currency Algorand

00:45:27.240 in your day-to-day transactions.

00:45:29.680 Can you imagine a world where we don't have to buy a cup of coffee using a federal dollar?

00:45:34.860 And you don't even have to use the American federal dollar.

00:45:37.100 You don't have to use the euro or the pound sterling.

00:45:40.080 You can use real money, digital currencies that are not at the beck and call of governments

00:45:45.020 and inflation.

00:45:46.200 Algodex is making digital currencies usable in a day-to-day basis.

00:45:57.240 We'll be right back.

Western Standard - February 26, 2022

WATCH： Calgary lawyer commends ruling denying parent-forced COVID vax for kids

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript