Featured Image
 Valour Law

ST ALBERT, Alberta (LifeSiteNews) — The attorney representing hundreds of current and former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members in a $500 million class action lawsuit against military leaders over the imposition of “unlawful” COVID jab mandates is calling for the court to summarily rule in their favor following the Crown urging the court to dismiss the case.

In June more than 300 individuals who have served in the CAF filed a claim in Canada’s Federal Court arguing that Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) General Wayne Eyre “issued an unlawful order on October 25, 2021, in violation of established law and constitutional rights” by requiring members of the armed forces to get the experimental COVID-19 shot or face removal from the service.

Earlier this month the Crown filed a statement of defense with the court arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed “with costs against the plaintiffs,” and describing the lawsuit as “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.”

The lawsuit is seeking monetary damages of roughly $1,000,000 per plaintiff and well over $1,000,000 more in other damages, coming to around $500,000,000 total.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Catherine Christensen of Valour Law, told LifeSiteNews that the Crown’s move to dismiss the lawsuit was to be expected.

“The Crown goes for that in pretty much every case in front of the court,” Christensen explained. “It’s really standard, and that’s why I throw it back at them at the end of my reply with, well you didn’t defend your case so I’m going with summary judgement.”

The Crown denies any breech of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and argue that “vaccination was safe, effective and accepted as part of a proper response to the pandemic.”

RELATED: Service member in suit against Canadian military describes devastating impact of COVID jab mandates

Christensen told LifeSiteNews that she has over 200,000 pages of evidence to counter these claims, including witness testimony, photographs, and memos to the Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS), General Wayne Eyre.

“I actually have a picture one soldier that was forced to stand outside,” she said.

“It’s quite a picture of him standing in the cold. That would be a war crime if they did it to a prisoner of war.”

In their statement, the defense say that the plaintiffs were given the opportunity to object to the vaccine on religious grounds. But Christensen says that there were consequences for this choice.

“You tied vaccination to their job, so that’s coercion,” she said.

The plaintiff response recognizes the CDS’s ability to order vaccinations on the CAF. They point out, however, that the National Defense Act under s126 allows for refusal which would then be resolved in a court martial.

In the Crown’s Statement of Defense, the government argues that there is no cause for action arising from the alleged infringement of the Privacy Act, and such claims should be dismissed. The plaintiffs responded to this with the following:

“The top levels of the CAF compounded the privacy breaches by creating a website that revealed confidential medical information of every member of the CAF. No measures were put into place to restrict access or control who would be able to see this information.”

Christensen stated that roughly 1,000 medical charts from CFB Edmonton were accessed by CAF members who did not have the proper authority to see the files.

“If someone had mental health issues, sexually transmitted diseases, something going on, these people had access to all that information.”

The case is not expected to be settled for years to come as the Crown will likely verify the testimonies of the hundreds of plaintiffs. These testimonies say that these CAF members were discriminated against for their decision to not receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Many chose under duress to leave the CAF rather than endure the humiliation and consequences of being removed. Punishments included being relocated and labelled publicly. One pilot was even denied permission to attend the funeral of a fellow pilot.

Christensen also made note of the timing of the staffing changes for the position of CDS. In December of 2020 General Jonathan Vance ordered that COVID-19 vaccines would be administered only after full informed consent had been given and did not mandate receiving the vaccine. General Vance was removed from the position about one month later. Admiral Art McDonald was then named CDS and was told to order mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. He did not do so before being removed from the role the next month.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the following reasons: severe and permanent psychological, physical and emotional trauma, loss of employment opportunities, worsening physical health because of inadequate medical support, threats and assaults, loss of sleep loss of trust in others, loss of self-confidence, loss of income, loss of opportunity for future income, post-traumatic stress disorder, and more.

When asked about the $1 million per plaintiff target Christensen said the number could have been higher, but the plaintiffs were more concerned with justice than a large sum of money.

“[The defendants] did terrible things to their own people, which is uncalled for. They didn’t have to lose thousands of troops because of something they were low risk for.”

RELATED: Canadian military recruitment down 35 percent amid lawsuit over COVID vaccine mandate