It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Im trying to convey that nobody should lose their job over not wanting to be part of the largest human experiment ever. Where there is risk (and there is) there must be choice.
Where do we draw the line? What if the government says boosters every week or you must inject bleach in your arms or every man over 40 must be forced to get a vasectomy.
Sounds crazy, but it all is. So where do we draw the line? Is the line different for everyone? Maybe, but collectively if we don’t unite now we are done. I believe a big part of this COVID thing was to cause division and hate. That is the most anti Canadian thing. We are not like that, we are better (and I admit Im guilty myself of judging others too)
I read stories of people not inviting family members over for Christmas due to their vaccine status (both ways) or making guests wear masks in their homes. Constantly sanitizing surfaces like maniacs using alcohol wipes and gel where there is a perfectly good sink and soap available .
Maybe it is time to re evaluate this whole thing from a psychological perspective. Time to live with this virus and carry on with life.
Where do we draw the line? What if the government says boosters every week or you must inject bleach in your arms or every man over 40 must be forced to get a vasectomy.
Sounds crazy, but it all is. So where do we draw the line? Is the line different for everyone? Maybe, but collectively if we don’t unite now we are done. I believe a big part of this COVID thing was to cause division and hate. That is the most anti Canadian thing. We are not like that, we are better (and I admit Im guilty myself of judging others too)
I read stories of people not inviting family members over for Christmas due to their vaccine status (both ways) or making guests wear masks in their homes. Constantly sanitizing surfaces like maniacs using alcohol wipes and gel where there is a perfectly good sink and soap available .
Maybe it is time to re evaluate this whole thing from a psychological perspective. Time to live with this virus and carry on with life.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
The final thing is neither you or me have all the cards and expertise to make this type of decision.DonTomas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:46 am Im trying to convey that nobody should lose their job over not wanting to be part of the largest human experiment ever. Where there is risk (and there is) there must be choice.
Where do we draw the line? What if the government says boosters every week or you must inject bleach in your arms or every man over 40 must be forced to get a vasectomy.
Sounds crazy, but it all is. So where do we draw the line? Is the line different for everyone? Maybe, but collectively if we don’t unite now we are done. I believe a big part of this COVID thing was to cause division and hate. That is the most anti Canadian thing. We are not like that, we are better (and I admit Im guilty myself of judging others too)
I read stories of people not inviting family members over for Christmas due to their vaccine status (both ways) or making guests wear masks in their homes. Constantly sanitizing surfaces like maniacs using alcohol wipes and gel where there is a perfectly good sink and soap available .
Maybe it is time to re evaluate this whole thing from a psychological perspective. Time to live with this virus and carry on with life.
And speaking of biased opinion, I agree with this one

Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
https://www.theepochtimes.com/westjet-e ... ium=search
A group of 176 current and former employees of air carrier WestJet filed a lawsuit on Oct. 5 against their employer and the federal government over the imposition of the vaccine mandate.
“Collaborating with airlines and corporate stakeholders, the Canadian Government implemented punitive and divisive Covid-19 vaccination mandates, creating a two-tier society stoked only by fear,” the group of plaintiffs calling themselves Cause For Action wrote in a statement.
The group says it has no issue with people choosing to get vaccinated, only with the coercive nature of the mandate.
“Our objection lies with the coercion, discipline, and denial of informed consent used to achieve mass vaccination. Forcing consent under duress is unethical, unconstitutional, illegal and by no means Canadian,” it says.
Cause For Action says it represents a variety of employees: active, on leave, terminated, forced into early retirement, and suffering from vaccine injury. The professions are also diverse, including pilots, flight attendants, and contact centre agents.
Even though the mandate was imposed by Transport Canada and WestJet would have faced penalties for not complying, the plaintiffs argue the company could have resisted but instead went aboveboard.
“Their aggressive enforcement resulted in unconstitutional abuse of thousands of people. Simply following orders has not historically been, nor will it be, an excuse to violate human rights and informed consent,” says Cause For Action.
Constitutional lawyer Leighton Grey, of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, is representing the plaintiffs. Grey represents employees from other companies in similar actions, notably railways CN and CP, and courier company Purolator.
The Epoch Times reached out to WestJet and Transport Canada for comment but we didn’t hear back immediately.
A Transport Canada statement to The Epoch Times from May on the issue of mandates says the “Government of Canada’s position is that the vaccination mandate is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Canada’s obligations in the area of human rights.”
It says the mandate was necessary to “safeguard” the transportation system.
Free to Fly, an advocacy group of aviation professionals and passengers affected by the vaccine mandates, welcomed the legal action.
“Justice needs to be seen, to be done, and we’re committed to that and to ensuring what happened to employees across this nation never happens again,” says the group’s co-founder Greg Hill.
“This is a battle on many fronts and we’re quick to point out that a rising tide floats all boats, so gains on one front will benefit the majority.”
New WestJet CEO Against Restrictions
The federal government’s vaccine mandates for air travellers and transportation workers came into force in October 2021 and was suspended in June.
“Vaccination is our best way out of this pandemic, and more than 98 per cent of our workforce self-declared their full-vaccination intent prior to the implementation of these policies,” said then WestJet CEO Ed Sims in an Oct. 22 statement.
Alexis von Hoensbroech replaced Sims as CEO in February and soon after started publicly criticizing federal restrictions.
He questioned the mask requirement in March, and then the travel vaccine mandate in May. Von Hoensbroech released a statement in late September to welcome the lifting of the remaining border restrictions on Oct. 1.
“We are relieved our guests can finally travel with additional confidence and certainty, knowing they can make decisions that are the best for them, and their travel plans won’t be interrupted,” said von Hoensbroech.
Air Canada also commented on the issue and said the government’s measures “were not justified by science.”
The government itself admitted during travel mandate legal proceedings to having little data on the impact of vaccination on in-flight viral transmission and its own research indicated that risk to be low.
A group of 176 current and former employees of air carrier WestJet filed a lawsuit on Oct. 5 against their employer and the federal government over the imposition of the vaccine mandate.
“Collaborating with airlines and corporate stakeholders, the Canadian Government implemented punitive and divisive Covid-19 vaccination mandates, creating a two-tier society stoked only by fear,” the group of plaintiffs calling themselves Cause For Action wrote in a statement.
The group says it has no issue with people choosing to get vaccinated, only with the coercive nature of the mandate.
“Our objection lies with the coercion, discipline, and denial of informed consent used to achieve mass vaccination. Forcing consent under duress is unethical, unconstitutional, illegal and by no means Canadian,” it says.
Cause For Action says it represents a variety of employees: active, on leave, terminated, forced into early retirement, and suffering from vaccine injury. The professions are also diverse, including pilots, flight attendants, and contact centre agents.
Even though the mandate was imposed by Transport Canada and WestJet would have faced penalties for not complying, the plaintiffs argue the company could have resisted but instead went aboveboard.
“Their aggressive enforcement resulted in unconstitutional abuse of thousands of people. Simply following orders has not historically been, nor will it be, an excuse to violate human rights and informed consent,” says Cause For Action.
Constitutional lawyer Leighton Grey, of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, is representing the plaintiffs. Grey represents employees from other companies in similar actions, notably railways CN and CP, and courier company Purolator.
The Epoch Times reached out to WestJet and Transport Canada for comment but we didn’t hear back immediately.
A Transport Canada statement to The Epoch Times from May on the issue of mandates says the “Government of Canada’s position is that the vaccination mandate is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Canada’s obligations in the area of human rights.”
It says the mandate was necessary to “safeguard” the transportation system.
Free to Fly, an advocacy group of aviation professionals and passengers affected by the vaccine mandates, welcomed the legal action.
“Justice needs to be seen, to be done, and we’re committed to that and to ensuring what happened to employees across this nation never happens again,” says the group’s co-founder Greg Hill.
“This is a battle on many fronts and we’re quick to point out that a rising tide floats all boats, so gains on one front will benefit the majority.”
New WestJet CEO Against Restrictions
The federal government’s vaccine mandates for air travellers and transportation workers came into force in October 2021 and was suspended in June.
“Vaccination is our best way out of this pandemic, and more than 98 per cent of our workforce self-declared their full-vaccination intent prior to the implementation of these policies,” said then WestJet CEO Ed Sims in an Oct. 22 statement.
Alexis von Hoensbroech replaced Sims as CEO in February and soon after started publicly criticizing federal restrictions.
He questioned the mask requirement in March, and then the travel vaccine mandate in May. Von Hoensbroech released a statement in late September to welcome the lifting of the remaining border restrictions on Oct. 1.
“We are relieved our guests can finally travel with additional confidence and certainty, knowing they can make decisions that are the best for them, and their travel plans won’t be interrupted,” said von Hoensbroech.
Air Canada also commented on the issue and said the government’s measures “were not justified by science.”
The government itself admitted during travel mandate legal proceedings to having little data on the impact of vaccination on in-flight viral transmission and its own research indicated that risk to be low.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
lol...well, seeing you put it like that.

Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
The lawsuits that have got to the courts have been largely dismissed. The simple fact remains that workplace safety trumps both charter and human rights (according to numerous SCOC and human rights tribunal rulings) when it comes to such matters. It is not about what the situation is at the time of filing, but what the situation was at the time of implementation.
Luckily for the employees, the jccf is not involved so it won't be an insta-dismissal but there is a reason none of these lawyers are working on contingency.
Luckily for the employees, the jccf is not involved so it won't be an insta-dismissal but there is a reason none of these lawyers are working on contingency.
J Roc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:13 pm https://www.theepochtimes.com/westjet-e ... ium=search
A group of 176 current and former employees of air carrier WestJet filed a lawsuit on Oct. 5 against their employer and the federal government over the imposition of the vaccine mandate.
“Collaborating with airlines and corporate stakeholders, the Canadian Government implemented punitive and divisive Covid-19 vaccination mandates, creating a two-tier society stoked only by fear,” the group of plaintiffs calling themselves Cause For Action wrote in a statement.
The group says it has no issue with people choosing to get vaccinated, only with the coercive nature of the mandate.
“Our objection lies with the coercion, discipline, and denial of informed consent used to achieve mass vaccination. Forcing consent under duress is unethical, unconstitutional, illegal and by no means Canadian,” it says.
Cause For Action says it represents a variety of employees: active, on leave, terminated, forced into early retirement, and suffering from vaccine injury. The professions are also diverse, including pilots, flight attendants, and contact centre agents.
Even though the mandate was imposed by Transport Canada and WestJet would have faced penalties for not complying, the plaintiffs argue the company could have resisted but instead went aboveboard.
“Their aggressive enforcement resulted in unconstitutional abuse of thousands of people. Simply following orders has not historically been, nor will it be, an excuse to violate human rights and informed consent,” says Cause For Action.
Constitutional lawyer Leighton Grey, of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, is representing the plaintiffs. Grey represents employees from other companies in similar actions, notably railways CN and CP, and courier company Purolator.
The Epoch Times reached out to WestJet and Transport Canada for comment but we didn’t hear back immediately.
A Transport Canada statement to The Epoch Times from May on the issue of mandates says the “Government of Canada’s position is that the vaccination mandate is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Canada’s obligations in the area of human rights.”
It says the mandate was necessary to “safeguard” the transportation system.
Free to Fly, an advocacy group of aviation professionals and passengers affected by the vaccine mandates, welcomed the legal action.
“Justice needs to be seen, to be done, and we’re committed to that and to ensuring what happened to employees across this nation never happens again,” says the group’s co-founder Greg Hill.
“This is a battle on many fronts and we’re quick to point out that a rising tide floats all boats, so gains on one front will benefit the majority.”
New WestJet CEO Against Restrictions
The federal government’s vaccine mandates for air travellers and transportation workers came into force in October 2021 and was suspended in June.
“Vaccination is our best way out of this pandemic, and more than 98 per cent of our workforce self-declared their full-vaccination intent prior to the implementation of these policies,” said then WestJet CEO Ed Sims in an Oct. 22 statement.
Alexis von Hoensbroech replaced Sims as CEO in February and soon after started publicly criticizing federal restrictions.
He questioned the mask requirement in March, and then the travel vaccine mandate in May. Von Hoensbroech released a statement in late September to welcome the lifting of the remaining border restrictions on Oct. 1.
“We are relieved our guests can finally travel with additional confidence and certainty, knowing they can make decisions that are the best for them, and their travel plans won’t be interrupted,” said von Hoensbroech.
Air Canada also commented on the issue and said the government’s measures “were not justified by science.”
The government itself admitted during travel mandate legal proceedings to having little data on the impact of vaccination on in-flight viral transmission and its own research indicated that risk to be low.
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Nothing was based on science and it’s all coming out now.
They admitted (Pfizer) that they didn’t know if their product would stop transmission.
The whole point of “workplace safety” is to stop transmission and these products didn’t.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/157 ... frame.html
They admitted (Pfizer) that they didn’t know if their product would stop transmission.
The whole point of “workplace safety” is to stop transmission and these products didn’t.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/157 ... frame.html
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:38 am
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Is any vaccine tested for that? This was not a lie from the drug company. This was turds like Trudeau making shit up. I knew before the vax was created that a vaccine is not designed to stop transmission. However if it prevents disease then a side effect to that is you can't transmit a disease you don't have.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:56 am Nothing was based on science and it’s all coming out now.
They admitted (Pfizer) that they didn’t know if their product would stop transmission.
The whole point of “workplace safety” is to stop transmission and these products didn’t.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/157 ... frame.html
Two years of posts that aged like a fine cheddar.
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
The point being if a vaccinated person can transmit the virus to others just like an unvaccinated person can, why do the unvaccinated lose their job and get treated like second class citizens? It should be a personal health choice, and no, it doesn’t prevent disease or spread.WellThatAgedWell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:02 amIs any vaccine tested for that? This was not a lie from the drug company. This was turds like Trudeau making shit up. I knew before the vax was created that a vaccine is not designed to stop transmission. However if it prevents disease then a side effect to that is you can't transmit a disease you don't have.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:56 am Nothing was based on science and it’s all coming out now.
They admitted (Pfizer) that they didn’t know if their product would stop transmission.
The whole point of “workplace safety” is to stop transmission and these products didn’t.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/157 ... frame.html
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
You are correct, a sober driver can hurt or kill someone with his car, what you cannot do is put On part his road performances versus a drunk one. Even if they are both drivers driving the same kind of car in the same area.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:09 am
The point being if a vaccinated person can transmit the virus to others just like an unvaccinated person can, why do the unvaccinated lose their job and get treated like second class citizens? It should be a personal health choice, and no, it doesn’t prevent disease or spread.
(Don't get triggered, it is just a rough sample to convey the idea of statistics)
It is not my call and never will be but yes, I am for the vaccin ban to be lifted and be a personal choice.....Now.
Now that this pandemic subsided and this virus mutated in the right direction which wasn't the case initially.
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand as to why it subsided

Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
You’re an idiot!TG wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:35 amYou are correct, a sober driver can hurt or kill someone with his car, what you cannot do is put On part his road performances versus a drunk one. Even if they are both drivers driving the same kind of car in the same area.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:09 am
The point being if a vaccinated person can transmit the virus to others just like an unvaccinated person can, why do the unvaccinated lose their job and get treated like second class citizens? It should be a personal health choice, and no, it doesn’t prevent disease or spread.
(Don't get triggered, it is just a rough sample to convey the idea of statistics)
It is not my call and never will be but yes, I am for the vaccin ban to be lifted and be a personal choice.....Now.
Now that this pandemic subsided and this virus mutated in the right direction which wasn't the case initially.
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand as to why it subsided![]()
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
That analogy doesn’t work. There is plenty of data to show that drinking impairs motor skills, cognitive function, and attitude. As well statistics showing likeliness of sober vs drunk accidents.TG wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:35 amYou are correct, a sober driver can hurt or kill someone with his car, what you cannot do is put On part his road performances versus a drunk one. Even if they are both drivers driving the same kind of car in the same area.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:09 am
The point being if a vaccinated person can transmit the virus to others just like an unvaccinated person can, why do the unvaccinated lose their job and get treated like second class citizens? It should be a personal health choice, and no, it doesn’t prevent disease or spread.
(Don't get triggered, it is just a rough sample to convey the idea of statistics)
It is not my call and never will be but yes, I am for the vaccin ban to be lifted and be a personal choice.....Now.
Now that this pandemic subsided and this virus mutated in the right direction which wasn't the case initially.
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand as to why it subsided![]()
As admitted now, that data didn’t exist when those arguments were being made for the vax. And now it appears it did little to prevent the transmission. People were forced to do something and being told to protect their neighbour or else be ostracized from society, when there was no data to back up the claim. That’s a problem.
Should we ban all drivers that only have one arm because we think they are more likely to be in an accident? The default should be to extend rights to everyone and then have data support if and when you should curtail those privileges.
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
It looks like your car analogy backfired, TG.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:56 amYou’re an idiot!TG wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:35 amYou are correct, a sober driver can hurt or kill someone with his car, what you cannot do is put On part his road performances versus a drunk one. Even if they are both drivers driving the same kind of car in the same area.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 4:09 am
The point being if a vaccinated person can transmit the virus to others just like an unvaccinated person can, why do the unvaccinated lose their job and get treated like second class citizens? It should be a personal health choice, and no, it doesn’t prevent disease or spread.
(Don't get triggered, it is just a rough sample to convey the idea of statistics)
It is not my call and never will be but yes, I am for the vaccin ban to be lifted and be a personal choice.....Now.
Now that this pandemic subsided and this virus mutated in the right direction which wasn't the case initially.
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand as to why it subsided![]()

-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:51 am
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
At the time of the mandate back in 2021, vaccine effectiveness against a positive PCR test was 82-88%. That was when Delta was the dominant variant. When arguing for the establishment of the mandates, this is likely the figure the government would use.
After Omicron, effectiveness took a nosedive down to less than 10%, but then improved dramatically up to about 60% as third doses were rolled out.
As of September 2022, vaccine effectiveness against a positive PCR test remained at approximately 50%, and is expected to improve with uptake of the bivalent vaccine. Since the Ontario Science Table has been dissolved, I'm looking for new data sources moving forward.
Furthermore, the vaccines have been shown to reduce COVID hospitalizations by 50-75%.
Sources:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... sc_lang=en
After Omicron, effectiveness took a nosedive down to less than 10%, but then improved dramatically up to about 60% as third doses were rolled out.
As of September 2022, vaccine effectiveness against a positive PCR test remained at approximately 50%, and is expected to improve with uptake of the bivalent vaccine. Since the Ontario Science Table has been dissolved, I'm looking for new data sources moving forward.
Furthermore, the vaccines have been shown to reduce COVID hospitalizations by 50-75%.
Sources:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... sc_lang=en
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Unfortunately the house of cards was partly built on reducing transmission. That was a prime reason governments introduced mandates that companies were obligated to follow.Bingo Fuel wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:01 am At the time of the mandate back in 2021, vaccine effectiveness against a positive PCR test was 82-88%. That was when Delta was the dominant variant. When arguing for the establishment of the mandates, this is likely the figure the government would use.
After Omicron, effectiveness took a nosedive down to less than 10%, but then improved dramatically up to about 60% as third doses were rolled out.
As of September 2022, vaccine effectiveness against a positive PCR test remained at approximately 50%, and is expected to improve with uptake of the bivalent vaccine. Since the Ontario Science Table has been dissolved, I'm looking for new data sources moving forward.
Furthermore, the vaccines have been shown to reduce COVID hospitalizations by 50-75%.
Sources:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... sc_lang=en
Perhaps worse, it created an us and them situation. People saying I don’t want to sit next to that unvaccinated person, they might give me covid. Various governments swayed to that public sentiment.
After all of that, it turns out there was no data (at least for Pfizer) that it did anything to prevent transmission. We all know that a big part of the sell was to get vaccinated to protect your neighbour.
Non of that has any relevance to the effectiveness of reducing the severity of the disease.
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Totally expected with the ones who can't gasp statistics and a few other things.J Roc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:48 amIt looks like your car analogy backfired, TG.DonTomas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:56 amYou’re an idiot!TG wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:35 am
You are correct, a sober driver can hurt or kill someone with his car, what you cannot do is put On part his road performances versus a drunk one. Even if they are both drivers driving the same kind of car in the same area.
(Don't get triggered, it is just a rough sample to convey the idea of statistics)
It is not my call and never will be but yes, I am for the vaccin ban to be lifted and be a personal choice.....Now.
Now that this pandemic subsided and this virus mutated in the right direction which wasn't the case initially.
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand as to why it subsided![]()
![]()

-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:06 am
Re: It's starting, over 100 WJ employees sue
Breaking News: WestJet lawyers excited to have an easy open/shut case in their favour instead of the usual APPR litigation and Sunwing merger meetings.