Supreme Court refuses to hear case of special-needs child physically isolated from family for 6 months during covid
Boy communicates by touch — Canada's highest court abdicates its duty to hear issues of public importance once again
In June 2023, then-terminally ill Sheila Lewis was denied a hearing in the Supreme Court of Canada over an Alberta hospital’s refusal to provide her with an organ transplant. Sheila would not (and could not) take any covid injections — although, to satisfy the hospital, she did retake the entire non-covid vaccine schedule, as her childhood records were lost.
Regardless of Sheila’s good faith accommodation of that unreasonable and dangerous demand, the hospital, province and courts - by crossing their arms and refusing the transplant - all in turn denied her natural and legal rights: to life, to freedom from cruel and unusual treatment [Bill of Rights 1960, Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982], and her “absolutely essential” right to voluntary consent, as codified in The Doctors Trial — U.S.A. v. Brandt et al, 1947 and its still-binding Nuremberg Code.
Sheila died in August 2023 for not consenting to experimental injections which she was professionally advised would endanger her life. Listen to her very moving testimony from May at the National Citizens Inquiry here.
According to Canada’s Supreme Court Act, s. 43(1)(a),
[…] the Court shall grant the application if it is clear [...] by reason of its public importance […] one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court […]
Yet, in keeping with a pattern of avoiding covid-related issues of public importance, the Supreme Court has now dismissed another case of covid policy cruelty.
JL by his litigation guardian PL v. Empower Simcoe
On 21 September 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for ‘leave’ (the court’s permission) to appeal in the case of a boy named JL and group home Empower Simcoe.
Before rendering its decision not to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court described the case as follows:
The applicant is a child with a genetic condition that renders him unable to communicate verbally. He relies on gestures, vocalizations, and touch to communicate with others, including his parents. The respondent, Empower Simcoe (“Empower”), a not-for-profit funded by the Ontario Ministry of Children, Community, and Social Services (“MCCSS”), operates the group home where the applicant lives.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, against the backdrop of frequently-updated guidelines and recommendations from Ontario’s Ministry of Health and MCCSS, Empower restricted visitation for residents of its group homes in a manner that effectively prohibited physical contact between the applicant and his family for approximately six months despite persistent advocacy and requests from the applicant’s parents during this time. The applicant’s parents declined visitation options that did not include physical contact.
The applicant, by his litigation guardian, complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) that the policy prohibiting physical contact with his family during this period amounted to adverse impact discrimination against him on the basis of a disability.
The HRTO upheld the applicant’s complaint. The applicant’s disability is a protected characteristic; he experienced an adverse effect from Empower’s policy because he could not have physical contact with his parents, and, because the policy in question applied exclusively to residents of group homes, all of whom are disabled, the applicant’s disability was a factor in the adverse treatment. While the policy in question was rationally connected to a public health purpose and adopted in good faith for that purpose, Empower applied non-binding guidelines from MCCSS rather than investigating the real risk posed by the applicant’s requested accommodation. It therefore failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship.
The Divisional Court found multiple key conclusions of the HRTO to be unreasonable. The impugned policy was not the reason the applicant did not see his family; his family declined alternatives. There was no link between the applicant’s disability and the impact he experienced; the impugned policy was adopted in the unfortunate circumstances of a general medical catastrophe. The HRTO was bound by the Divisional Court’s decision in Sprague v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 2335, on this point. It was also unreasonable to conclude that Empower failed in its duty to accommodate when it made reasonable efforts to do so in the circumstances. The HRTO’s decision was set aside.
The Court of Appeal [for Ontario] denied leave to appeal.
[The Supreme Court also denied leave to appeal.]
In effect, the Supreme Court has ruled that the issue of physically isolating children with special needs from their families is not a matter of public importance.
Here is the mother’s point of view, from a July 2021 Maclean’s article (before the Human Rights Tribunal decision was overturned in Divisional Court):
Empower Simcoe offered J.’s parents opportunities to visit using video chat software, or in person with a gate between them, since he is not able to understand and keep to physical distance rules. It was a wrenching decision, but Libralesso decided these types of visits would only be confusing and harmful to J., since he communicates predominantly by touch. “It would be like seeing an animal in a zoo—for him, and for us.”
[emphasis added]
credit for finding the article
Bias
Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner has a clear bias on covid policy issues. At the end of this June 2023 CTV interview he states,
I think we have strong institutions, but, we have to work for it. And it would be a mistake to take that for granted, and we lived through some experiences last year, uh, there's a lot of disinformation and misinformation, essentially through the social media.
[emphasis added]
“some experiences last year” = the 2022 trucker convoy
The Chief Justice also sits on a covid action committee which meets monthly.
Is the Supreme Court undermining the rule of law in Canada by avoiding the country’s most important human rights cases?
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s original decision, in favour of the boy
Divisional Court’s decision to overturn — the court here casually comments at para. 4 that “No vaccines were yet available to reduce the virulence of the virus or to tamp down its impact”, revealing that the court is not aware of the many more Ontarians who died of covid after vaccines and boosters than before (officially)
2 November 2023 update — The Supreme Court has turned away yet another covid vaccine-related case. Read here.
I would really like to know how much of it is the professional class having literally zero respect for the people / their rights and autonomy, vs actual manipulation and corruption.
I can see it being a pretty big mix of both, considering one naturally leads to the other.
We need this Supreme retard like we need another booster.
Not allowing a parent to be with their child. What a fucking joke this Country has become.