Canadian Armed Forces Members File $500 Million Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID Jab Mandates

Hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members have joined a $500 million class action lawsuit against military leaders, alleging that the imposition of COVID jab mandates was unlawful and breached the public trust. This article explores the lawsuit, its implications, and the arguments put forth by the plaintiffs.

In a significant development, hundreds of members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have recently initiated a class action lawsuit, seeking $500 million in damages, against military leaders regarding the imposition of “unlawful” COVID jab mandates. The lawsuit alleges that these mandates not only caused harm to the plaintiffs but also constituted a breach of public trust. This legal challenge could potentially set a crucial precedent for all Canadians who have faced pressure to receive experimental COVID shots against their will.

Canadian Armed Forces Members Challenge COVID Jab Mandates in Landmark Lawsuit

Are COVID-19 Vaccines Compromising the Immune System? Unveiling the Alarming Findings

In a 137-page statement of claim filed with the Federal Court on June 21, viewed by LifeSiteNews, 329 individuals who have served in the CAF argue that Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre issued an unlawful order on October 25, 2021. This order violated established law and constitutional rights by requiring armed forces members to receive the experimental COVID-19 shot or face removal from service. The lawsuit contends that the Canadian military rushed to impose an untested product onto its members, deviating from its core purpose.

Discharge of Unvaccinated Service Members Raises Concerns

On October 8, 2021, the CAF issued a military-wide COVID jab mandate, making it mandatory for all service members to become “fully vaccinated” or face discharge from service. Consequently, numerous unvaccinated members were discharged. Although the mandate was partially rolled back, with operational readiness troops still required to receive the injections, military leadership affirmed that soldiers who remained unvaccinated would still be discharged.

Related: Did the Amish Achieve Herd Immunity Naturally? Challenging COVID Narratives

Allegations Against Canadian Military Leaders

The statement of claim, filed on June 21, not only targets General Wayne Eyre but also names Vice Chief of the Defence Staff Lieutenant-General Frances Allen and Minister of National Defence Anita Anand as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Canadian military mislabeled the experimental gene therapy as a vaccine, knowingly made false statements about safety and efficacy, and mandated it without providing an option to refuse except for mandatory permanent removal from service. The plaintiffs argue that this amounts to a breach of trust and seek monetary damages of approximately $1 million per plaintiff, totaling over $500 million.

Implications and Significance of the Lawsuit

If successful, this class action lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, not only for the armed forces but also for all Canadians who have been subjected to vaccine mandates. It raises questions about the limits of authority and the protection of individual rights in the face of governmental coercion. The outcome of this case will be closely watched as it has the potential to establish an important precedent.

Conclusion:

The class action lawsuit brought forth by hundreds of members of the Canadian Armed Forces against military leaders over the imposition of COVID jab mandates signifies a growing resistance to forced vaccinations and highlights concerns about breaches of trust. The legal challenge asserts that the mandates were unlawful, caused harm to the plaintiffs, and violated their constitutional rights. This lawsuit could set a significant precedent and shape the future of vaccine mandates in Canada. As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly attract attention from individuals and communities across the country who share similar concerns about personal freedom and the rule of law.