News
Featured Image
Classroom with masked teacher and studentsShutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — A group of education workers in Ontario slammed the province’s mandatory vaccination and testing policies implemented in schools in an open letter September 8.

“Dear Trustees, Directors and Superintendents, Educators For Human Rights (EFHR) represents a growing number of Ontario teachers and education workers in the public education sector,” opens the letter, obtained by LifeSite. “As we have previously stated, and we repeat, ‘the medical and health choices of each member are the sole purview of that member.’ Our unions, employers and colleagues must respect that privacy. The law is unequivocal on this.”

The letter outlines the position of the educators on legal grounds, citing various laws from provincial acts pertaining to healthcare, occupational safety, as well as the Bill of Rights, the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Nuremberg Code.

The letter quotes the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996, which states:

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

No treatment without consent: 10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,

(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or

(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 10 (1).

Elements of consent

11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

1. The consent must relate to the treatment.

2. The consent must be informed.

3. The consent must be given voluntarily.

4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).

According to the Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996, treatment “means anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventive, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic or other health-related purpose, and includes a course of treatment, plan of treatment or community treatment plan.

According to the letter, “this definition would include any vaccination or any COVID-19 test, as they are both, allegedly, ‘preventive,’ ‘diagnostic’ and for a ‘health-related purpose.’

In addition, the EFHR argues that the testing and vaccine mandates are in violation of the Ontario Health and Safety Act, which states in Section 63(2), “No employer shall seek to gain access, except by an order of the court or other tribunal or in order to comply with another statute, to a health record concerning a worker without the worker’s written consent.”

Employers can be fined $100,000 and face up to 12 months in prison.

Other violated protections listed in the letter are the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, which states it is illegal to administer a test to determine if someone has or can spread an illness, the Nuremberg Code which states any “preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic medical interventions” can only be carried out with “free and informed consent,” and the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.”

The letter comes after the EFHR, along with 18 other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against educators and politicians across Ontario. The suit was filed with respect to the “illegal” COVID-19 measures implemented in schools provincewide, particularly the masking of children, forced social distancing, and the prohibition of in-school learning.

The lawsuit was filed in Ontario’s Superior Court on April 20 by lawyer Rocco Galati’s Constitutional Rights Centre (CRC). The Attorney General of Ontario attempted to have the case dismissed, but the request was rejected on May 27, as the court decided the lawsuit “cites known grounds of Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] challenge” and therefore a “complete record and full legal arguments” need to be heard.

“We are in the final stages of completing our ‘record’ which includes details of the personal experiences of the children and parents and the high-quality evidence-based, scientific and medical experts,” CRC said in response to the ruling.

EFHR’s recent letter indicates they are not going to comply with any school board, superintendent, director, educator, or trustee asking them to disclose their vaccination status or receive a vaccine as a condition of their employment.

“Our members across Ontario are not going to disclose their vaccination status to their school board employers as personal medical health is protected by privacy laws and other legislation. The medical health and choices of an individual are private and confidential and therefore are not required to be disclosed to anyone.”

“The school boards do not have the right to ask about vaccination status, and there is no legitimate scientific let alone lawful rationale for these mandates, despite the despotic, and desperate, totalitarian edicts emanating from the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health’s office,” the letter concludes.

Attorney Rocco Galati’s Constitutional Rights Centre has been at the forefront of taking legal action against the government for its “unlawful” and “dictatorial” COVID-19 mandates.

In addition to the EFHR suit, Galati’s CRC has filed suits against the government on behalf of businesses regarding vaccine passports, masking, and lockdowns, on behalf of police officers against their services for having them enforce COVID-19 measures, and on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada for restrictions on people’s ability to qualify for a vaccine exemption.

“I have a constitutional right to not have a medical treatment forced on me,” said Galati. “Who decides [what medical treatments you have to take], you or the state? It has got to be you or else we’re back to Nazi Germany.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.