OCLA signs open letter to Canadian ministers: Stop genocide or resign

Posted on February 22, 2024 by admin

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has added its name to the Open Letter published today by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) and signed by more than 750 civil society organizations.

The text of the letter is as follows:

Open Letter: Stop Genocide or Resign

Canadian civil society organizations urge Ministers Joly, Hussen, and Miller, either to take steps to avert genocide in Gaza or to resign

February 2024

The undersigned Canadian civil society organizations are calling for the resignation of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen, and Immigration Minister Marc Miller, unless they take immediate and meaningful action in response to the risk of genocide in Gaza.

In November, 36 UN experts warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza point to a “genocide in the making.”  In January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that there is a plausible case of genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of genocidal acts.  The Canadian government and these three ministers have not only ignored these warnings, but their actions have exacerbated the crisis.

Ministers Joly, Hussen, and Miller have each mismanaged their ministerial portfolio in response to the risk of genocide, failing to address the urgency of the moment and even causing further harm. Each minister has announced decisions which reflect little regard for Palestinian life or international law, and have shown very little situational awareness concerning the impact of their decisions. By 1) transferring weapons into a genocidal context, and 2) knowingly withdrawing support for Gaza’s humanitarian infrastructure, the actions of Ministers Joly and Hussen directly violate the ICJ’s orders to prevent genocide. Meanwhile, Minister Miller has put up unnecessary barriers that complicate the ability of the loved ones of Canadians to flee a context of genocidal violence.

As signatories, we cannot accept this to be Canada’s legacy amid the genocide unfolding before our eyes. If these Ministers are not able to step up in this moment of extreme crisis and redress these errors, they should step aside.

We demand that these Ministers take the following actions or else resign from their roles:

1.    We demand that Minister Joly declare unequivocal support for the ICJ’s recommended emergency measures, demand that Israel comply with the court’s rulings to prevent genocide in Gaza, and take steps to ensure that Canadian policy is not contributing to genocidal acts. The first step must be the imposition of an embargo on Canada-Israel military trade: arming the perpetrator of a genocide, while providing humanitarian aid to the victims is the epitome of cynical geopolitics.

2.    We demand that Minister Hussen immediately and unconditionally restore humanitarian aid to UNRWA. Given the acute genocidal crisis, we also insist that Hussen double Canada’s existing funding commitments to UNRWA for the next three years.

3.    We demand that Minister Miller remove the arbitrary, discriminatory and ultimately racist barriers on family reunification visas for Gaza, and fast track the process to bring loved ones out of harm’s way.

More information

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly – Minister Joly’s failure to respond to the ICJ’s initial ruling on the plausibility of genocide in Gaza demonstrates that Canada is not taking the catastrophic threat to human life seriously. Leading up to the decision, Joly expressed support for the court itself but refused to take a clear position on South Africa’s application, and even appeared to dismiss its “premise.”  When asked to clarify her position, Joly responded to inquiries flippantly, as if she and the government purposely intended to be unclear.  When the ICJ issued provisional measures ordering Israel to take measures to prevent genocide, Joly’s statement did not express support for the measures nor call upon Israel to comply with the ruling.  Rather than recognizing the seriousness of the ICJ’s provisional ruling, her response implied that before taking action, Canada needed to wait until the ICJ’s “final” decision on genocide – something that could take years. This response reflected smug indifference to the killing of Palestinians on a massive scale.

Ultimately, Joly’s silence on the ICJ’s orders suggests that Canada has abandoned its commitment to international law, as well as our obligations under the Genocide Convention vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Worse, the government has admitted that it has approved permits for arms exports to Israel since Oct. 7. As such, in her ministerial role, Joly has chosen not to exercise her prerogative to deny arms export permits to Israel during a plausibly genocidal campaign, thus enabling the transfer of military goods to Israel despite the clear risk that they will be used against Palestinian civilians.  In a letter to Joly, more than 30 civil society organizations have warned that “Canada cannot at the same time signal support for the ICJ […] while continuing to arm those whom the ICJ has ruled are plausibly accused of genocide.”

International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen – On the same day that the ICJ ruled that Israel must increase humanitarian access to Gaza to prevent genocide, Minister Hussen announced an indefinite suspension of humanitarian aid to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees. This reckless decision was a kneejerk reaction to unproven Israeli claims about a few of the agency’s employees, collectively punishing the 2 million people in Gaza (and four million other Palestinian refugees) who rely on the agency as a lifeline. Since Canada’s announcement, UNRWA now warns that its operations will collapse if its funding is not resumed,  and UN bodies  and humanitarian aid agencies  warn of catastrophe because of this decision. While Minister Hussen subsequently increased humanitarian aid to other agencies, this redirection of funding ignores that UNRWA is the only organization currently with the capacity to deliver aid to Gaza at scale. Palestinians in Gaza are facing starvation and the emergence of epidemics of communicable disease, any damage to the remaining humanitarian infrastructure risks leading to mass deaths even after a ceasefire is obtained.

Ultimately, in the absence of any claims of mismanagement on the part of UNRWA, Minister Hussen withdrew humanitarian funding to the agency overseeing aid to a population facing genocide. The apparent assumption that other agencies can within days both 1) recreate UNRWA’s on-the-ground presence in Gaza during a genocide and war, and 2) replicate UNRWA operations throughout the Middle East, are entirely out of touch with reality. Through Hussen’s decisions, Canada is defying the many warnings that cutting UNRWA’s funding will severely harm a population already facing famine, disease, and genocide.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller – Despite the massive early death toll of Palestinian civilians, it took Minister Miller over three months to launch a temporary visa program to help Palestinian-Canadian families reunite with loved ones in Gaza.  Once opened for applications, the program was found to present huge unnecessary barriers and restrictions which limit its humanitarian potential. The visa program for Gaza is reportedly one of the most restrictive programs of its kind, with an arbitrary cap of 1,000 people causing panic and competition among Palestinian Canadians who are trying to get their loved ones out.  Moreover, the application process requires unprecedented levels of personal information, imposing a tremendous and unreasonable burden on displaced people in a war zone.  Making this worse, offensive remarks from Minister Miller and his colleagues indicated that these restrictions are motivated by a perception that the loved ones of Palestinian Canadians are an inherent security threat.

Ultimately, Miller’s visa program fails to provide the aid and protections necessary to a population facing genocide who have relatives in Canada. The limitations built into this program, and the attitude of Miller and his colleagues have resulted in a program that is entirely out-of-touch with the realities of a genocide, causes unnecessary hardship, and reflects a clear double standard when compared with similar programs assisting other populations.

Endorsing Organizations:

Arab Palestine Association of Ontario (APAO)
Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians (APAC)
Canadian BDS Coalition

Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba (CPAM)
Canadian Palestinian Social Association – London
Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council (CMPAC)
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
Labour for Palestine (L4P)

World Beyond War (WBW)

AND

Action for Palestine

Anatolia Islamic Center
Birthing Transformations

Bosnian Islamic Association

Bosnian Islamic Centre of Hamilton
Calgary Immigrant Support Society
Calgarians Against Racism, Violence & Hate
Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) – Edmonton Chapter
Canadian Lebanese Academic Forum
Canada Palestine Association – Halifax
Canada Palestine Association – Vancouver
Centre justice et foi
Cinema Politica
CJPME Saskatoon Chapter
Cloverdale–Langley City For Palestine
Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid Victoria
Community Peacemaker Teams
Davenport for Ceasefire
Disability Advocate
East End Acts
Edmonton Islamic Centre
Faculty for Palestine
Groupe de recherche d’intérêt public de l’UQAM
Hochelaga Pour La Palestine
Human Without Borders
INSAF uOttawa
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Iraqi Turkmen Federation
Islamic Centre of Southwest Ontario
Jerrahi Sufi Order of Canada
Justice For All Canada
Justice for Palestinians Calgary
Just Peace Advocates
Kitchener-Conestoga Riding 4 Palestine
Lasalle-Émard-Verdun 4 Palestine
Longueuil pour la Palestine
McMaster SPHR
MidIslanders for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Migrante
Mississauga-Streetsville for Palestine
Muslim Association of Brantford
Muslim Food Bank and Community Services

NDP Socialist Caucus

Niagara Movement for justice in Palestine-Israel (NMJPI)
North Shore for Palestine
No More Silence
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
Ontario Palestinian Rights Association
Ontario Public Interest Research Group – Carleton
Ontario Public Interest Research Group – Guelph
Ontario Public Interest Research Group – Peterborough
Ontario Public Interest Research Group – York
Outremont pour la Palestine
Palestinian Canadian Congress
Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU)

Palestine Solidarity Halifax
Palestine Solidarity Network
Papineau pour la Palestine
Parkdale High Park for Palestine

PSAC local 902
Regina Peace Council
Richmond 4 Palestine
Rideau Institute
Rising Tide Squamish

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
Scarborough Rouge Park for Palestine
Sea to Sky Palestine
Siraj Institute
Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste
Socialist Project
Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights – Concordia University
Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights – McMaster University
Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights – Queen’s University
Spadina – Fort York for Palestine
SURJ Toronto
The Arusha Centre
The Obstetric Justice Project
Think for Actions
Toronto Centre for Palestine
Toronto-St. Paul’s for Palestine

United Jewish People’s Order
University-Rosedale for Palestine
Vancouver-Granville for Palestine
Vancouver-Quadra for Palestine
Victoria Friends of Cuba
Waterloo for Palestine
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Canada
Yk Citizens for Ceasefire
York Centre 4 Palestine

 

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on OCLA signs open letter to Canadian ministers: Stop genocide or resign

OCLA Report: ONCA decision harms public perception of the judiciary

Posted on March 29, 2023 by admin

OCLA researcher Denis Rancourt, PhD, has authored a new report about the recent Ontario family law decisions in the case of J.N. v. C.G.

The report, entitled “The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in J.N. v. C.G. brings the province’s appellate judiciary into disrepute”, begins as follows:

In the recent family law case J.N. v. C.G., the divorced parents sought a court decision regarding which parent should have deciding authority for COVID-19 vaccination of their two youngest children, aged 10 and 12.

Justice A. Pazaratz gave the self-represented mother (J.N.) sole decision-making authority with respect to the vaccinations,1 and awarded her costs in the motion;2 on the basis that her concerns were the result of conscientious enquiry, were not unfounded or arbitrary, that the children had not been manipulated and held a consistent desire not to be vaccinated, and that psychological harm could be caused if they were forced to be vaccinated by their father (C.G.).3

Basically, Justice Pazaratz found that the mother was the more rational, closest and concerned adult to make the decision of vaccination for the two youngest children (which every adult is free to make for themselves), which also respects the children’s constant and independently expressed wishes; on the considered basis that this is the best outcome for the welfare of the children.

The report goes on to provide a detailed criticism of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in the case:

The appellate court’s 23-page decision is dismissive, even overtly sarcastic at one point (paragraph 30), and, most importantly, denies the mother’s natural justice rights, in a matter of forced bodily injections no less, by misrepresenting the family court decision and disregarding the established law of evidence regarding judicial notice, while imposing its own order that the father have sole decision-making authority “with respect to the children’s vaccination against COVID-19”.

(…)

Basically, on my study of the decision, if I may paraphrase, the appellate court’s reasoning for circumventing the established law of judicial notice (and principles of natural justice) in this case about forcibly injecting children is: “well, it’s the government, and there’s a declared pandemic”.

(…)

This appellate court in-effect wants to “simplify” all similar cases in this way: the government position should be taken as absolute, and the parent’s only option is to prove that their particular child would be at too high a risk compared to an unquantified benefit — “the parent seeking not to have the children vaccinated, had the onus to establish that, despite Health Canada’s opinion [taken as proven fact] as to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, they should not be” (at para. 46).

(…)

Why is it so difficult for an appellate court to admit the possibility that, when billion-dollar secret contracts are in play, and when the government structurally applies a self-reporting framework with manufacturers, government public health positions are not entirely and objectively based on actual and verifiable science, and that, therefore, the government should not be taken at its (website) word in establishing facts arising from complex and technical manipulations controlled by an industry that does not have a stellar reputation for safety?

In the present case, the family-court judge acted wisely, applying the principles of family law, whereas the appellate court was flippant, to the extent that a court can be flippant, and brings the province’s appellate judiciary into disrepute.

(…)

Finally, it is comforting to note that the appellate court’s decision in J.N. v. C.G. has already engendered bold and significant pushback from a judge of the family court in Ontario, in a similar case of parents having opposite positions regarding COVID-19 vaccination of their children, in which government pronouncements about “safe and effective” are at issue.

Although couched in terms of distinguished circumstances, the said pushback is as close to a “rebellion” as one can observe in a common law court system.”

(…)

Click here to read the full report.

 

Posted in COVID, Legal analysis, Reports, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on OCLA Report: ONCA decision harms public perception of the judiciary

Analysis estimating vaccine-dose fatality rate by age group in Israel and Australia

Posted on February 9, 2023 by admin

OCLA is now hosting a report, published by Correlation Research in the Public Interest, entitled “Age-stratified COVID-19 vaccine-dose fatality rate for Israel and Australia”.

The report was authored by Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, and Jérémie Mercier.

The Abstract of the report is as follows:

ABSTRACT: It is now well established from autopsy studies and adverse effect monitoring that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause death. The vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR), which is the ratio of vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a population, has recently been measured by us to be as large as 1 % in India and when “vaccine equity” campaigns were applied in high-poverty states of the USA, and to be 0.05 % in Australia, with data that is not discriminated by age group. Here, we provide the first empirical evaluations of age-stratified vDFRs, using national all-cause mortality and vaccine rollout data, for Israel and Australia. We find that the vDFR increases dramatically with age for older adults, being exponential with a doubling time of approximately 5.2 ± 0.4 years. As a result the vDFR is an order of magnitude greater in the most elderly population than the all-population value, reaching 0.6 % for the 80+ years age group in Israel and 1 % for the 85+ years age group in Australia, compared to < 0.01 % for young adults (< 45 year olds). Our results imply that it was reckless to prioritise vaccinating those deemed to be in greatest need of protection.

Click here to read the full report.

Posted in COVID, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Analysis estimating vaccine-dose fatality rate by age group in Israel and Australia

OCLA’s 2022 Year in Review

Posted on December 31, 2022 by admin

OCLA_logo+type_for_email

 

 

 

 

Dear OCLA Supporter,

This email is to give you an update on the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)’s work in 2022.

As a reminder, OCLA has consistently opposed Canadian governments’ egregious COVID-era measures since April 2020, as summarized at our COVID page.

Launch of CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest

Members of OCLA have launched CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest, a new, registered non-profit organization conducting independent scientific research on topics of great public interest.

You can read CORRELATION’s first newsletter about our first funding campaign and set of research reports at the link here: https://mailchi.mp/f7c498d36d9c/news-from-correlation-research-in-the-public-interest

Please SIGN UP for CORRELATION’s email list to receive our updates!

Click here to subscribe.

Three OCLA Reports

OCLA released three research reports in 2022:

1) OCLA Report 2022-1 (ver. 1) (February 2022): “Nature of the toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccines in the USA”

  • Covered by Rebel News here.
  • Covered by Science en Conscience (in French) here.

2) OCLA Report 2022-2 (September 2022):

“Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of Covid measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law”

3) OCLA Report 2022-3 (October 2022):

“State coercion to receive medical injections confirms conflicting interpretations of the right to life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)”

  • Covered by Tribunal de l’Infaux (in French) here.

OCLA’s criticisms of the Fisman et al. modeling article claiming unvaccinated people “disproportionately harm” vaccinated people

A mathematical modeling article by Fisman et al. in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) became the source of intense vilification of people who refused COVID-19 vaccination.

The collage of headlines pictured below summarizes the media and governmental frenzy that emerged within hours of the CMAJ publication on April 25, 2022:

media-collage-75

OCLA researchers immediately dissected the CMAJ article and exposed crucial mathematical flaws in it, in a statement on our website and letter to the editor in CMAJ. Beyond unreasonable parameter choices – which many other critics also noted – the model itself does not predict what Fisman et al. claimed regarding “harm” to vaccinated from unvaccinated people.

Here is a video of OCLA researcher Dr. Denis Rancourt explaining our criticism to members of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance: https://ocla.ca/dr-denis-rancourt-presents-oclas-criticism-of-the-cmaj-fisman-et-al-paper-to-the-canadian-covid-care-alliance/

Our analysis of the flawed Fisman et al. model also led us to conduct a fundamental study of how segregating people based on vaccination status affects disease spread in epidemic models. This became the first medRxiv pre-print by CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest.

In the pre-print, we show that segregation can have negative outcomes for both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Also, Appendix 3 of version 1 of the pre-print spells out the fundamental mistakes made by Fisman et al. in their paper.

OCLA’s public statements condemning the use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy

The Freedom Convoy movement that arrived at Parliament Hill in late January was an outstanding example of effective peaceful protest against authoritarian government policy, in this case vaccination mandates that objectively violate the fundamental freedoms of religion, conscience, and life, liberty, and security of the person.

The Convoy’s successes were summarized in their Statement of Accomplishments, which OCLA posted on our site at the link here.

Throughout the Freedom Convoy’s presence on Parliament Hill, OCLA researchers attended and observed the protest, which informed our following public statements in support of the protesters’ rights and against the government’s extreme and unnecessary use of the Emergencies Act:

OCLA director’s submissions appealing the Bank of Canada’s decision to suspend him without pay for declining vaccination

OCLA Executive Director Dr. Joseph Hickey was placed on unpaid leave for declining vaccination by his employer the Bank of Canada, in November 2021.

In March 2022, Hickey submitted a 766-page internal appeal of his employer’s decision, containing detailed scientific and legal arguments. A media article about his appeal was published by the Western Standard.

Hickey and the Bank eventually mutually agreed to end his employment. Joseph continues to appeal the government’s denial of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits to him, and his appeal is currently before the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.

OCLA in the media

All past media articles featuring OCLA’s work can be read here.

Donations

As an independent non-profit organization with a very small budget, we depend on donations to continue our work, and appreciate any contribution you can make. Donations can be made in the following ways:

  • e-transfer in Canada to: donations@ocla.ca
  • Debit or credit card via PayPal (HERE)
  • Through our Patreon account (HERE)
  • Cryptocurrency via Coinbase (HERE)
  • By cheque made out to “Ontario Civil Liberties Association” and sent to our mailing address: Ontario Civil Liberties Association, 28 Concourse Gate, Unit 105, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2E 7T7

OCLA is not affiliated with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) or the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). All three associations are separate and distinct.

Thank you for your support!

Sincerely,

Joseph Hickey, PhD
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca)

OCLA on Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncivlib

Posted in Newsletters, Year in Review | Comments Off on OCLA’s 2022 Year in Review

Analysis linking high all-cause mortality in Australia to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Posted on December 20, 2022 by admin

OCLA is now hosting a new report, published by Correlation Research in the Public Interest, and authored by Denis Rancourt, Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, entitled “Probable causal association between Australia’s new regime of high all-cause mortality and its COVID-19 vaccine rollout”.

The Abstract of the report is as follows:

ABSTRACT: All-cause mortality by week in Australia shows that there was no detectable excess mortality 13 months into the declared pandemic, followed by a step-wise increase in mortality in mid-April 2021, synchronous with the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine prioritizing elderly, disabled and aboriginal residents. The excess mortality in the vaccination period (mid-April 2021 through August 2022; 14 % larger all-cause mortality than in recent pre-vaccination periods of same time duration; 62 million administered vaccine doses) was 31±1 thousand deaths, which is more than twice the deaths registered as from or with COVID-19. In addition, a sharp peak in all-cause mortality (mid-January to mid-February 2022; 2,600 deaths) is synchronous with the rapid rollout of the booster (9.4 million booster doses, same time period), and is not due to a climatic heatwave. We give thirteen numbered arguments as to why we conclude that the excess mortality in Australia is causally associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. The corresponding vaccine injection fatality ratio (vIFR) is approximately 0.05 %, which we compare to estimated vIFR values from the USA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and from all-cause mortality data for India, Southern states of the USA, Michigan (USA) and Ontario (Canada).

Click here to read the full report.

 

 

Posted in COVID, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Analysis linking high all-cause mortality in Australia to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Refusal to be vaccinated not “misconduct” in new SST decision

Posted on December 19, 2022 by admin

Many Canadian employees who were suspended without pay or fired for refusing vaccination have had their personal health decisions labeled as “misconduct” and been denied Employment Insurance (EI) benefits by the government.

On Dec. 14, 2022, the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (SST) released a decision overturning the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission’s denial of EI benefits to a former hospital administration employee who was dismissed for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in November 2021.

READ THE DECISION HERE.

The claimant did not want to take the risk of being vaccinated due to her health conditions, including having had cancer as a child and negative reactions to anesthetic during surgery, and wanted to wait until more information was available about the safety of the vaccine. The Commission reviewed her case and found she lost her work “due to her own misconduct”, and therefore denied her EI benefits.

The Tribunal decided that the employee had no explicit or implicit duty to be vaccinated arising out of her employment contract. The employment contract was a collective agreement, which included a provision regarding influenza vaccination stating that employees had the right to refuse any vaccination.

The Tribunal found that the employer unilaterally imposed a new essential condition of employment on the claimant without her agreement or the agreement of her union.

The Tribunal also found that since the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health’s Directive #6 for Public Hospitals leaves the decision whether or not to require vaccination of employees up to individual hospitals, there exists no specific legislation or directives obligating individuals to be vaccinated.

The Tribunal concluded that the Commission had not met the burden of proof to substantiate that the claimant breached an expressed or implied duty owed to the employer when she chose not to be vaccinated or provide an exemption.

Since there was no duty to be vaccinated, the denial of EI benefits was overturned.

The decision ends with a section discussing the individual rights of the claimant not to be vaccinated. The Tribunal Member noted that it is well founded in Canadian common law that an individual has the right to control what happens to their bodies and has the final say in whether they accept any medical treatment:

[79] Indeed, I could not find a single case where a claimant did something for which a specific right, supported in law, exists, and subsequently that action was still found to be misconduct simply because it was deemed willful.

[80] In the absence of a FCA decision that provides such guidance, I am persuaded that the Claimant has a right to choose whether to accept any medical treatment. Despite that fact that her choice contradicts her Employer’s policy, and led to her dismissal, I find that exercising that “right” cannot be characterized as a wrongful act or undesirable conduct sufficient to conclude misconduct worthy of the punishment of disqualification under the EI Act.

Given the expressed rights of the claimant not to be vaccinated if she so chose, the Member found her decision not to constitute misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.

Posted in COVID, Legal analysis, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Refusal to be vaccinated not “misconduct” in new SST decision

Ontario RN Andrew Brannan writes public letter opposing action campaign for renewed mask mandates

Posted on December 8, 2022 by admin

RNAO-action-alert-mandates

Ontario Registered Nurse Andrew Brannan has written a strong letter to Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), opposing RNAO’s action campaign entitled “It’s mandates we need, not recommendations, premier!”

Brannan’s letter refers to the conclusive body of scientific evidence demonstrating the lack of health benefits from masking, and calls for the RNAO to “return to the foundational principles of nursing, which includes the the promotion of health and human flourishing on scientific and holistic grounds.”

Click here to read the letter in full. 

Posted in COVID, Face Masks, Letters | Comments Off on Ontario RN Andrew Brannan writes public letter opposing action campaign for renewed mask mandates

Analysis linking extraordinary Spring 2021 excess all-cause mortality in India to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Posted on December 5, 2022 by admin

OCLA is now hosting a new report, published by Correlation Research in the Public Interest, and authored by Denis Rancourt, entitled “Probable causal association between India’s extraordinary April-July 2021 excess-mortality event and the vaccine rollout”.

In the report Dr. Rancourt gives ten numbered arguments as to why the extraordinary mortality event was likely to have been caused by India’s vaccine rollout in its early stages.

The Abstract of the report is as follows:

ABSTRACT: India experienced a unique, sudden, unprecedented and extraordinarily large excess all-cause mortality event in April-July 2021, which is not adequately explained as a “second wave” or as being caused by a new variant of concern. After an overview of four recently published studies that have quantified the April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality event, we give ten numbered arguments as to why we conclude that the extraordinary mortality event was caused by India’s vaccine rollout in its early stages. Therefore, it appears that the early rollout of the vaccine in India in April-July 2021 was devastating, causing the deaths of approximately 3.7 million residents, on administering approximately 350 million doses of the vaccine.

Click here to read the full report.

Posted in COVID, Reports, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Analysis linking extraordinary Spring 2021 excess all-cause mortality in India to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

Is refusal to be vaccinated “misconduct” under the Employment Insurance Act? OCLA ED raises constitutional issues in Social Security Tribunal appeal

Posted on November 26, 2022 by admin

OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey has filed jurisdictional arguments in his appeal to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (SST) against the federal government’s decision to deny him Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

Hickey’s submissions to the SST, dated Nov. 24, 2022, can be read here: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-24-Hickey-SST-jurisdiction-posting.pdf

Hickey was employed as a Data Scientist at the Bank of Canada and was placed on unpaid leave in November 2021 for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The Bank of Canada is a Crown corporation subject to the federal government’s vaccination mandate. (Hickey and the Bank have since mutually agreed to resolve all outstanding issues.)

The Canadian Employment Insurance Commission (CEIC) rejected Hickey’s request for EI benefits, deciding that his refusal to be vaccinated constituted “misconduct” under the Employment Insurance Act, thus disqualifying him from EI, even though at the time Hickey was pursuing a duly brought and active appeal with his employer of the refusal to exempt him from vaccination. (See the CEIC’s representations to the SST in Hickey’s appeal, here.)

Hickey argues to the SST that the “misconduct” provisions of the EI Act and their application to him are unconstitutionally vague in that refusing a dangerous medical intervention cannot be interpreted as “misconduct” justifying depriving a citizen of government assistance or service.

Hickey also argues that “misconduct”, which is not defined in the EI Act, cannot possibly include refusing to comply with government policies or directives that infringe one’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hickey’s Nov. 24 submissions concern the SST’s jurisdiction to decide these constitutional issues. The CEIC will respond in writing by Dec. 26, and Hickey will have until Jan. 25 to reply, following which the SST will decide if it has jurisdiction to decide the constitutional issues raised in Hickey’s appeal.

Update: The CEIC’s response, dated Dec. 23, 2022, can be read here.

Update: Hickey’s reply and Amended Notice of Constitutional Question, dated Jan. 24, 2023, can be read here.

Update: The SST convened a hearing on Mar. 3, 2023, and asked Hickey and the CEIC to present arguments regarding the following question: “Can the doctrine of vagueness be invoked without first invoking a violation of s.7 of the Charter?” The CEIC was permitted to submit a post-hearing reply in writing, which it provided on Mar. 17, 2023. The SST will decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear Hickey’s constitutional challenge.

Update: The SST General Division decided it does not have jurisdiction to hear Hickey’s constitutional challenge of the “misconduct” sections of the EI Act. Hickey filed a request for leave to appeal to the SST Appeal Division on May 10, 2023.

Update: The SST Appeal Division requested arguments from the parties regarding whether the tribunal should apply an “exceptional circumstances” threshold for granting leave to appeal the General Division’s decision not to hear Hickey’s constitutional claim. Hickey argued that the tribunal would be exceeding its jurisdiction if it were to apply the “exceptional circumstances” test to its within-tribunal process, since the test was exclusively developed for and only has meaning in the context of a judicial review by a court. The CEIC’s arguments are here. Both parties filed their submissions on June 20, 2023.

Update: The SST Appeal Division decided to apply the “exceptional circumstances” test and not grant Hickey leave to appeal the General Division’s decision not to hear Hickey’s constitutional claim at this stage. The July 18, 2023 decision can be read here.

Update: The main hearing (hearing on merits) of Hickey’s appeal of denial of EI benefits was heard before General Division Tribunal Member Angela Ryan Bourgeois on September 12, 2023. Member Bourgeois’ decision rejecting Hickey’s appeal was issued on November 23, 2023 and can be read here.

Update: Hickey submitted his request for leave to appeal both the SST’s April 7, 2023 decision not to hear his claim that the “misconduct” provisions of the EI Act are unconstitutional in their effect pursuant to the rule-of-law doctrine of vagueness, and the SST’s November 23, 2023 decision to deny his claim for EI benefits.

Update: On April 30, 2024, Hickey was granted leave to appeal the SST’s April 7, 2023 decision not to hear his constitutional claim (reasons for granting leave to appeal to follow). The SST has not yet decided whether to grant leave to appeal its November 23, 2023 decision.

Posted in COVID, Vaccines | Comments Off on Is refusal to be vaccinated “misconduct” under the Employment Insurance Act? OCLA ED raises constitutional issues in Social Security Tribunal appeal

Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada

Posted on November 26, 2022 by admin

2022-03-23--WS--Hickey-cropped

OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey was previously employed by the Bank of Canada as a Data Scientist.

Hickey was placed on unpaid leave without benefits in November 2021 for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2022, Hickey filed an extensive internal appeal of the Bank’s denial of his request for an accommodation to continue working from home.

Hickey’s appeal submission is here: https://ocla.ca/data-scientist-files-internal-appeal-of-bank-of-canadas-mandatory-vaccination-policy/

A media article about Hickey’s appeal was published by the Western Standard on March 23, 2022: https://archive.ph/vwCV1

In October 2022, Hickey and the Bank mutually agreed to resolve all outstanding issues and end the employment relationship, to the satisfaction of both sides.

Posted in COVID, Vaccines | Comments Off on Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada