11 Comments
User's avatar
Timothy J. Lochhead's avatar

Thanks for sharing and reporting. However, this actually isn't a win because of the reasoning: "found that while the policy was reasonable at its inception and until mid-2022, it became unjustifiable as COVID-19 evolved."

These measure and demands were and are never reasonable - so this jargon here doesn't set a good precedent.

Expand full comment
chycho's avatar

The policy, of course, was never "reasonable".

Expand full comment
Lorne Beaudette's avatar

The cracks in the wall of "safe and effective" science are growing bigger all the time.

The damn will break one day.

Expand full comment
Sunlover's avatar

Now let’s get all those healthcare workers compensated as well…waiting for their unions to finally step up and represent them…

Expand full comment
sharonbrink7@gmail.com's avatar

It does send a message..money talks. Freedom of Choice should be the law.

Expand full comment
Dianne Skagen McBeth's avatar

Any doubt about a health care policy should be resolved before implementing a mandatory treatment. The doubt was there from the beginning and the consequences overstated to incite fear and obedience. Turns out that safe and effective was a lie. Never again.

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

Funny how only some unions stood up for their member while others just bent over for the employer.

Just for clarity…..these injections were never OSHA certified or tested, were not PPE and in fact had compounds in them (SM-102) that were labelled “not for human or veterinary use”…….this is like the employer telling workers that flip flops were now mandated in a construction zone, a complete safety violation, and what did the unions do to protect their members….SFA.

Expand full comment
Vivien C Buckley's avatar

People or groups that went against the “narrative” were demonized. Including two Ontario family judges who ruled against feuding parents who wanted their children vaccinated. The Toronto Star did hit pieces on them because they concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence before them to rule in favour of the pro vaccine parent. Very logical as there wasn’t any evidence to support the shots. It amazes me that this bulldozing of humans took place worldwide. Some entity was very influential to accomplish such a feat. Over on Trust The Evidence Hannigan and Jefferson got hold of a contract between the EU and pfizer. Pfizer held countries over a barrel and could demand everything they wanted before agreeing to sell the shots. Totally one sided. As with everything about pharma, they are hardcore corrupt. Untold numbers of people have had their lives destroyed through the mandates, the propaganda and the shots. I am injured from the first shot. This whole escapade was rotten to the core.

Expand full comment
Ian Campbell's avatar

The lack of protection was known all along, i.e. from Israeli data. Why shouldn't Purolator have been obliged to understand that? Why did their (and the courts') obligation to understand things only kick in in mid-2022?

Expand full comment
Sober Christian Gentleman's avatar

This is to protect the government.

Expand full comment
Rose Desjarlais's avatar

Our corrupt government has to go.

Expand full comment