Three University of Winnipeg Collegiate instructors plan to take the province and school to court over a vaccine mandate they call “overboard, unreasonable and discriminatory.”
The University of Winnipeg, province of Manitoba and the chief public health officer Dr. Brent Roussin are 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’s vaccine policy violates the Manitoba Human Rights code.
The plaintiffs include Renise Mlodzinski, Evan Maltman and Kyle Du Val. Their time teaching at the institution spans between three and eight years.
The University of Winnipeg made COVID-19 vaccines mandatory starting Sept. 7, 2021. The policy requires anyone going inside a campus building to be fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated with plans to be fully immunized by Oct. 15, 2021.
The plaintiffs say they did not receive notice of this requirement until Oct. 4, 2021.
As a result of being unvaccinated, they were placed on involuntary unpaid leave of absence on Sept. 7, 2021. They claim says they have faced public “ridicule, hatred, discrimination and delegitimization,” among other forms of abuse because of their vaccine status.
“The collection of vaccine status is not confidential. The minute an employee is placed on unpaid leave, their status is immediately apparent.”
The three instructors contend the vaccine policy violates their Charter right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures, including disclosing private medical information such as vaccine status or COVID-19 test results.
“The policy seeks to coerce employees to be vaccinated against their will, without informed consent. The Policy amounts to an expressed intention to engage in a conspiracy to commit assault.”
The platiffs also argue that vaccines are experimental and that they have not undergone long-term safety observation. They say a false sense of security has been created because of COVID-19 vaccines.
They say the vaccines “merely provide some ‘benefits’ or ‘protection’ that in certain circumstances at best lessens severity of symptoms or potentially reduces the risk of hospitalization.”
They claim the ingredients of the vaccine have not been publicly disclosed, so people are not able to know whether they could be fatally allergic to any of them.
“mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine technology, and this is the first time that such vaccines are being administered to humans without widespread and lengthy clinical trials first being conducted,” according to the statement of claim.
“The vaccination program in Canada is being adjusted on the fly as adverse effects manifest necessitating the need for constant amendments of safety guidelines. This underlines the experimental nature of these vaccines.”
The instructors listed eleven damages they’ve suffered as a result, including severe and permanent psychological, physical and emotional trauma. They also say it’s caused loss of employment opportunities, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loss of trust in others among others.
The instructors are asking for a stay the U of W’s vaccine mandate until it can be reviewed by a judge. They are also asking for up to a million dollars in damages for the “intentional infliction of mental distress, and assault and battery,” and another million in damages for violating their charter rights.
In a statement to Global News, the University of Winnipeg says, “The University of Winnipeg and the Collegiate are following public health directives, which are based on the best scientific evidence. Our vaccine mandate is part of our plan to ensure a safe working and learning environment for faculty, staff and students. The lawsuit is misconceived and will be challenged accordingly.”
Lawyer Leighton Gray, who is representing all three instructors, declined to comment.
The Manitoba government says they aren’t able to comment as the matter is before the courts. However they said they, “takes the health and wellbeing of all Manitobans into account when it drafts public health orders and relies on all Manitobans to do what is right.”
Legal Battle
Benjamin Hecht is a labour lawyer with Pitblado law and he says the case was not surprising to him.
“The long and the short I’ll tell you about their claim… is that I think they’ve got a tough row to hoe,” he told Global News.
He says it’s unlikely this matter and others that are similar will succeed in court.
“They’re asking that the university sort of relax their policy pending the hearing, that’s not going to happen because a hearing could take years.”
Hecht says on the matter of claiming it’s a violation of the Manitoba Human Rights Code, it’s not an viable argument.
“My body my choice — yes, but overriding duty of safety and health concerns lets an employer make a policy about vaccinations,” he said. “And you do get to choose, but then that means you can’t go to work.
“Personal choice or preference is not a a protected characteristic under the human rights code and it cannot be justifiably argued that a person was discriminated against because of a choice or preference not be vaccinated.”
He says it comes down to employees following the workplace health and safety act.
“The health and safety of the community at large has to take precedent at large over the needs of a group of anti-vaccine people or any one individual employee.”
The province has been given 20 days to file a statement of defense. However, Hecht says that’s only the first step of a process that could take years to work through the court system.
© 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
More Stories
AGO workers reach tentative agreement ending month long strike: union – Toronto | Globalnews.ca
Jury selection begins in case of alleged Winnipeg serial killer | CBC News
That offer to buy your time-share could be from a Mexican drug cartel | CBC News