# Anti-vax Canadian soldiers lose lawsuit; Federal Court dismisses without trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 20, 2024, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530 "2024-11-20T21:42:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/1 "2024-11-20T21:42:32Z")
About 300 soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces sued the Federal government in Federal Court, alleging breach of Charter, infringement on religious freedom, etc., with each seeking $1,000,000 in damages. Federal Crown brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Federal Court agreed and struck it entirely, not requiring a trial. As the sub-heading to the news item below summed up: “The 330 plaintiffs in the case each sought $1 million in damages. The judge’s ruling means they will have to pay a $5,040 legal bill instead.” > [@](#): > > On July 12, 2024, lawyers for the government of Canada filed a motion to strike the case without an option to amend the lawsuit. They claimed the case consisted of “bald allegations unsupported by facts” and that it failed to connect the allegations with the named plaintiffs. > > The motion also alleged the lawsuit used “vexatious language;” made unsupported allegations against the defendants; and failed to offer sufficient facts supporting a breach of Charter rights. The judge agreed, concluding that the soldiers had not pled facts to support their broad allegations: > [@](#): > > Coughlan wrote that the plaintiffs’ pleading was “replete with vexatious language.” > > In one example, the plaintiffs describe COVID-19 vaccines as “experimental gene therapy” and “biologics” without backing up why the labels might be accurate. In other parts of their pleading, the plaintiffs make bad faith assertion that vaccine directives “promoted the fraudulent use of the biologics” and were “criminal in nature.” > > “These statements are bald allegations with no material facts pled in support,” wrote the judge in her ruling. > **[Federal judge throws out lawsuit challenging Canadian Armed Forces vaccine...](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/federal-judge-throws-out-lawsuit-challenging-canadian-armed-forces-vaccine-mandate-9826199)** > > The 330 plaintiffs in the case each sought $1 million in damages. The judge's ruling means they will have to pay a $5,040 legal bill instead. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/2 "2024-11-20T21:45:45Z")
Really asking…what is “breach of charter?” Is it like violating the constitution in the US? (I feel like I should know this) I’m glad these soldiers lost. If there is one thing militaries have learned over millennia it is to maintain hygiene and avoid disease. In the US, at least, the courts have been super-duper deferential to the military when it comes to this sort of thing (cutting hair, etc). If you don’t want to get vaccinated, don’t join. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/3 "2024-11-20T21:47:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Really asking…what is “breach of charter?” > > Is it like violating the constitution in the US? Yes, that’s it. You folks have the Bill of Rights; we’ve got the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As far as I can tell, they were alleging religious infringement (Charter, s 2), infringement of liberty (Charter, s 7) and unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s 8), and maybe some other stuff. I’m not inclined to try to track down their statement of claim to read their pleadings; the judge’s summary is good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/4 "2024-11-20T21:55:52Z")
> Coughlan wrote that while most of the plaintiffs were denied religious accommodation, none of them identified a “specific religious belief or practice in which they sincerely believe.” > > Only one plaintiff, Stephen Troy Chledowski, alluded to a specific belief when he applied for religious accommodation as a “Pansexual Pagan.” Whoever advised them to proceed with this case greatly misled them. Religious accommodation is the one of few reasons they could’ve got away without getting vaxxed, but no one was serious enough to claim that right. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/5 "2024-11-20T21:59:27Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Whoever advised them to proceed with this case greatly misled them. Religious accommodation is the one of few reasons they could’ve got away without getting vaxxed, but no one was serious enough to claim that right. Maybe they have a case against their attorneys for malpractice? What you mentioned about religious accommodation sounds drop dead easy to allege. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-vax-canadian-soldiers-lose-lawsuit-federal-court-dismisses-without-trial/1010530/6 "2024-11-20T22:05:58Z")
I’m sure ensuring the claim for religious accommodation is more difficult than it seems but, whatever the process is, I’m confident that the first step is to… present a religious belief or practice that would be counter to getting vaxxed. Oy. Malpractice indeed (if they even bothered to use a lawyer that is)