Travel Mandates Litigation
Our Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit – Updates and information
CROSS EXAMINATION TRANSCRIPTS – Follow this link to download a searchable PDF which includes four of the transcripts from our cross examinations of the government’s sixteen witnesses, while under oath. We will be making all remaining cross examination transcripts ASAP. Start by reviewing Exhibits D, F, H and J: Click Here to Download (38mb)
Read Justice Jocelyn Gagne’s mootness ruling and rationale
Click Here to Download
Follow us for frequent updates, news and announcements related to our Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit
TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@ShaunRickard
Federal Court filing information: Court File #: T-1991-21-ID
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA BETWEEN: SHAUN RICKARD AND KARL HARRISON – Applicants
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, as represented by ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and TRANSPORT CANADA – Respondents.
A statement regarding Justice Gagne’s somewhat controversial mootness ruling.
Like millions of Canadians, we’re disappointed with Justice Gagne’s decision and reasons and we will now set about challenging the decision in the Federal Court of Appeal.
Its incorrect to suggest that we have “substantially received the remedies sought” and this is highlighted by even a basic reading of our application notice. Six million Canadians, deprived unconstitutionally of protected rights for nearly a year and subjected to discrimination , will be as offended as we are that this judge felt that their concerns were not worth the cost of a 5 day hearing in the Federal Court. How could this court consider that there was no inconsistency in law that would justify the hearing if it had already decided not to hear the case at all.
Justice Gagne feels that it is not the role of the Court to prevent future government actions will be a surprise to the majority of Canadians who feel that the separation of powers in our country imposes upon our courts exactly that obligation where government policies are found to be unconstitutional, discriminatory and egregious. The first step towards meeting that solemn obligation is to actually hear the case, to listen to the concerns of those affected, and look at the issues rather than kick the can down the road!
The issues here are no more moot than is the behavior of an abusive spouse who beats their partner for a year, and demands absolution for doing no more than temporarily stopping whilst threatening to start all over again some time in the future. The abuse of mootness in the Canadian courts clearly needs to be reviewed.
Along with applicants in the other three cases we will press on towards appeal. We believe we will prevail. The road to justice can sometimes be a long one.
Karl Harrison & Shaun Rickard