Last year we heard the ruling of Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in British Columbia, in a case brought forward by the Canadian Constitution Federation (CCF) on behalf of the three individuals who claim they were harmed by the vaccine passport program.

All three petitioners state that they were not able to be fully vaccinated for medical reasons but were not considered eligible for exemption from the provincial program which, in many cases, required exemption to be considered on an ‘activity-by-activity’ application basis.

Despite the ridiculous logistics of such a regime, Justice Hinkson stated his position; that the plaintiffs “have not exhausted the remedies available to them under the legislative scheme.” “I reject the petitioners’ assertions that the impugned Orders affect their rights and those of disabled persons whose conditions are not specifically included in Deferral Form”.

The CCF moved forward with an appeal, stating “We believe that there were errors in the lower court decision,” with lawyer Geoffrey Trotter reiterating that it is “in the public interest to have an authoritative determination about whether (the vaccine passports) were legitimate or not”.

On the third day, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued a statement agreeing that a case examining the validity of the vaccine passport program should be heard.

They further expressed that “there is something to be gained by having this court consider the issue and provide some guidance”, pointing out “the issue of whether the Section 7 right to liberty includes a right to roam, is an important one.”

We couldn’t agree more. Just because these mandates have ended and have not (yet) been reinstated, does not mean this is over. They have made that very clear.

We all have a vested interest in knowing whether this was done lawfully, and with the appropriate transparency and best interests of Canadians, as is required. We already know the answer in our hearts but look forward to seeing our courts acknowledge these truths.

Although it’s easy to lose hope, there are still cases like this that can turn the tables back in support of our Charter Rights.