Another landmark decision further demonstrates how our federal government overstepped their boundaries and authority by placing unreasonable restrictions on the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

We are all intimately familiar with the 2021 Covid-19 mandate imposed on employees across the country, forcing them to be fully vaccinated (two vaccines), spend significant effort justifying why their rights deserve respect or be removed from their jobs entirely. Most of those who applied for exemption, for medical reasons or due to sincerely held religious beliefs, were denied without sufficient reason or even a sincere review.

Mathieu Lemay, a federal employee of 15 years, was one of thousands in this frustrating situation, with numerous emails and communications legitimately questioning the decision of his employer and demanding their justification. With full support from the unions who were supposed to protect employees against such overreach, he was placed on leave without pay for noncompliance, only to be invited back months later when the mandate had lifted, as though nothing unusual had happened.

The government offered no acknowledgement for the damages suffered by these individuals: the complete loss of income, social stigmatization, and systematic destruction of their professional reputation. But life goes on, right? At least you have your job back.

No.

Mathieu Lemay refused to accept that his suffering should be swept under the carpet. He took his case to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board where the adjudicator, Christopher Rootham, ruled “that [Mr. Lemay] is entitled to damages of $5000 under s.53(2)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” An amount chosen to represent his pain and suffering over the “loss of dignity and self-worth” incurred by being “placed on leave without pay.” Rootham further order the employer to provide backpay for the entire period of leave, including benefits.

As reported by Epoch Times, the justification Mr. Lemay offered, in an effort to demonstrate his “sincerely held religious beliefs” detailed his belief in God’s superiority over man-made creations, stating that his faith “dictates that [he] cannot use medicine…when it is not absolutely necessary to sustain [his] life, as it shows no faith in God’s power to heal.” Mr. Lemay went on to say that his employer “perverted the nature of employment” by reducing it to compliance with a policy that infringed on his beliefs.

This ruling affirms the protections enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as highlighted by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), “sends a clear message that Charter rights cannot be overridden by blanket mandates”.

The decision echoes other significant critiques of the vaccine policies, like those of the Canadian Armed Forces, where mandates were deemed unconstitutional under Section 7 of the Charter, violating rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.

And yet others agree that this decision also bolsters Section 2(a), our freedoms of conscience and religion, protecting Canadians from forced medical decisions against their beliefs and safeguarding bodily autonomy.

Many cases remain active, awaiting their own just decision. One such case is our own. We at Police on Guard (POG) have spearheaded the largest lawsuit to date addressing the vaccine mandate in the context of employment. This recent decision brings renewed hope for a win in favour of those who stood up against government overreach, with respect to forcing the covid vaccine.

With our case and the many others, we hope that those responsible for these pending judgements apply the same logic and understanding of the ultimate importance of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and its rightful place in the lives and decisions of individual Canadians.

We continue to stand strong for Canadians and our Charter, applauding both Mr. Lemay, for his determination, and the adjudicator in this case, for his just decision.

We as Canadians should not have to continually justify our guaranteed rights against a government who refuses to acknowledge their own limitations.

To read the decision, click here