COVID-19: Three U-college instructors sue school, province for vaccine mandate – Winnipeg

Three instructors from the University College of Winnipeg plan to take the province and school to court for a vaccination mandate they call “off-board, unreasonable and discriminatory”.

University of Winnipeg, Manitoba province and chief of public health Dr. Brent Roussin have been named as defendants in the statement of claim that was filed last Monday.

Manitoba Health and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration are also listed as defendants.

The three instructors say the U of W vaccine policy violates the human rights code in Manitoba.

Plaintiffs include Renise Mlodzinski, Evan Maltman and Kyle Du Val. Their teaching time in the institution lasts from three to eight years.

The University of Winnipeg has made COVID-19 vaccines mandatory from September 7, 2021. The policy requires that anyone entering a campus building be fully or partially vaccinated with plans to be fully immunized by October 15, 2021.

Plaintiffs say they did not receive notice of this claim until October 4, 2021.

As a result of immunization, they were placed on involuntary leave of absence on September 7, 2021. They claim to have faced public “mockery, hatred, discrimination and delegitimization”, among other forms of abuse because of their vaccine status .

“The collection of vaccine status is not confidential. “Once an employee is placed on unpaid leave, his or her status becomes immediately apparent.”

The three instructors claim that the vaccine policy violates their Charter right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, including the disclosure of private medical information, such as vaccine status or COVID-19 test results.

“The policy seeks to force employees to be vaccinated against their will, without informed consent. “Politics is a clear intention to get involved in a conspiracy to carry out an attack.”

The parties also argue that the vaccines are and that they have not undergone long-term safety monitoring. They say a false sense of security has been created because of the COVID-19 vaccines.

They say vaccines “simply offer some ‘benefits’ or ‘protection’ that in certain circumstances at best reduce the severity of symptoms or potentially reduce the risk of hospitalization”.

They claim that the ingredients of the vaccine have not been made public, so people are not able to know if they may be fatally allergic to any of them.

Trends

• 

  Torch Crossing: The musical descendant of famous rock stars

• 

  Paxlovid, oral pill Pfizers for COVID-19, approved in Canada

“MRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine technology and this is the first time such vaccines are being administered to humans without first widespread and lengthy clinical trials,” the statement said.

“Vaccination program in Canada is being adjusted in motion as the negative effects appear by demanding the need for constant changes in safety guidelines. This underscores the nature of these vaccines.

The instructors listed eleven injuries they suffered as a result, including severe and permanent psychological, psychic, and emotional trauma. They also say this has caused loss of employment opportunities, post-traumatic stress disorder and loss of trust in others among others.

Instructors are demanding that the mandate of the U of W vaccine be suspended until it can be reviewed by a judge. They are also seeking up to $ 1 million in damages for “intentionally causing mental distress, and assault and battery,” and another $ 1 million in damages for violating their statutory rights.

In a statement to Global News, the University of Winnipeg says the University of Winnipeg and the College are following public health guidelines, which are based on the best scientific evidence. Our vaccine mandate is part of our plan to provide a safe working and learning environment for faculty, staff and students. The lawsuit is misconceived and will be challenged accordingly.

Attorney Leighton Gray, who represents all three instructors, declined to comment.

The Manitoba government says they are unable to comment as the matter is before the courts. However, they said they “take into account the health and well-being of all Manitobans when drafting public health orders and rely on all Manitobans to do what is right.”

Legal battle

Benjamin Hecht is a labor lawyer with Pitblado law and he says the case was not suspicious of him.

“The long and short thing I’ll tell you about their claim … is that I think they have a tough quarrel to throw,” he told Global News.

He says this case and others that are similar are unlikely to succeed in court.

“They are asking the university to ease their policy in anticipation of the hearing, this will not happen because a hearing can last for years.”

Hecht says that on the issue of the claim that it is a violation of the Manitoba Human Rights Code, it is not a viable argument.

“My body is my choice yes, but the main task of safety and health concerns allows an employer to make a vaccine policy,” he said. “And you have to choose, but then that means you can not go to work.

“Personal choice or preference is not a characteristic protected under the human rights code and it cannot be reasonably argued that a person has been discriminated against because of their choice or preference not to be vaccinated.”

He says it depends on the employees who follow the act of health and safety in the workplace.

“Community health and safety in general should have precedent in general towards the needs of a group of people against the vaccine or any individual employee.”

The province has been given 20 days to file a protection declaration. However, Hecht says this is only the first step in a process that could take years to function through the judicial system.

View link »