Date: 20221027 Dockets: T-145-22 T-247-22 T-168-22 T-1991-21 Citation: 2022 FC 1463


Date: 20221027 Dockets: T-145-22 T-247-22 T-168-22 T-1991-21 Citation: 2022 FC 1463

27 Oct 2022

[23] The question is whether the IOs/MO have any effect on the Applicants’ rights and the answer to that question is no; they all ceased to have any adverse effect on the lives and livelihoods of the Applicants the minute they were repealed. [...] On August 3, 2022, Associate Judge Tabib denied the motion, noting “it appears that one of the goals of the proposed amendments is to attempt to insulate the Applicants from the potential consequences of the Respondent’s motion to declare this application moot.” She considered the implications of a dismissal of the motion for mootness and concluded that “I am, accordingly, not satisfied that the d. [...] [36] Second, they state that a decision by the Court may have practical effects on the rights of the parties if the government brings similar mandates back; allowing the Government’s lifting of the measures to render the Applications moot would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. [...] In doing so he considered i) the resources already invested in the case, ii) the existence of related labour disputes between the same parties, and iii) the fact that all parties desired to have a decision on the issues raised by the case. [...] [45] Justice Phillips studied the choice imposed on the Applicants — accepting to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or loosing one’s employment — and found that even if the vaccination was subject to the consent of the individual, there is nevertheless a breach of section 7 if the refusal has important consequences; as a result, the IOs/MO violates the liberty and security of the person in thei.


Lavoie, Jennifer

Published in