BCPS Employees for Freedom

Standing for #medicalprivacy and #bodilyautonomy for all Peoples in British Columbia. Please donate:

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

Do you want to be forced to comply the next time the government mandates a novel pharmaceutical intervention to keep your job? 💉

We still owe $28K for the legal action we sponsored last year to hold the @bcndp accountable for their egregious abuse of power. Never again!

Help us advance this important public interest litigation. Thank you! 🙏❤️ #medicalprivacy #bodilyautonomy

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

CLASS ACTION UPDATE

Day 10 Summary

Today was the final day of an extremely hard-fought certification hearing that has spanned 15 days of submissions from both sides dating back to April of this year. Now we await the decision of Madam Justice Burke. We want to express our deepest gratitude for the tremendous advocacy and persistence of BCPSEF’s and @UHCWBC’s legal counsel, Umar Sheikh (@uasind). What he has done to move this litigation forward is truly remarkable. Regardless of the outcome of this certification application, we know that the best possible case has been put forward in defence of B.C. public servants, healthcare workers, #medicalprivacy, and #bodilyautonomy.

Today’s Hearing
Opening Procedural Dispute
· The plaintiffs concluded their response to the defendants’ arguments regarding certification criteria
· The defendants’ objected to the plaintiffs’ written summary document submitted to the court
· Court broke for 30 minutes to allow the defendants to review the summary
· The defendants formally objected, arguing the summary was submitted too late and constituted an improper new submission on the final hearing day
· The defendants requested the court reject the document and end the trial
· The plaintiffs countered that the defendants had provided supplementary documents throughout trial and that they had a right to reply to all arguments, including new case law raised after their March 2025 written submissions
· Justice Burke ruled to allow the summary document on the basis that counsel would present it orally
· The defendants requested the judge vary the January 2025 Order; Justice Burke declined and confirmed her decision

Certification Criteria Arguments
Identifiable Class
· The plaintiffs argue their proposed classes satisfy all certification criteria
· The law requires identification by objective criteria, not perfect precision or exhaustive definition
· The fact that some class members may receive no settlement is not grounds for denying certification

"Empty Class" Objection
· The plaintiffs dispute the defense's "empty class" argument
· The Province called its own measures "Mandates"
· The defendants acknowledged the proposed class definition could be amended to "those unionized employees who were subject to PHO Orders"
· The plaintiffs characterize this as the unionized employees' practical reality—concrete, fact-based, and non-subjective

Over-Inclusiveness Claims
· The defendants argue the proposed classes are over-inclusive, including people who voluntarily vaccinated and those hired after the mandate
· The plaintiffs contend this is a merit-based objection for trial, not certification hearing
· Over-inclusiveness is not fatal to certification as long as all were affected by the existence of the order

Class Identification Complexity
· The defendants argue legal judgment would be required to identify healthcare worker class members due to complex orders
· The plaintiffs respond that unionized workers would know if they worked under a PHO Order and whether their employment was in jeopardy
· The defendants claim orders applied to myriad healthcare employers; the plaintiffs reply this is exactly the type of objective criteria enabling class identification

Overlap with CSASPP Action
· The defendants claim the actions overlap or re-litigate the CSASPP action
· The plaintiffs clarify their actions concern only PHO Orders regarding employment, not restrictions on restaurants or public gatherings
· The plaintiffs acknowledge 213 potential claimants could be part of both classes but assert this is manageable through sub-classes

Substantive Legal Arguments
Misfeasance
· The plaintiffs argue that if the Cassels report is accepted, the defense argument against including misfeasance collapses
· The plaintiffs contend this goes to merits for trial, not certification hearing
· At this procedural step, the court is not judging merits
· The plaintiffs frame misfeasance as a commonality issue since everyone was subject to the PHO's actions

Expert Evidence on Transmission
· The defendants requested the court accept their expert witness's evidence on transmission as incontrovertible truth
· The plaintiffs argue this should be determined at trial
· Data regarding transmission requires interpretation and is contested

Safety Data
· The defendants acknowledge myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombosis resulting from the vaccines
· The plaintiffs argue the defendants’ safety position is context-dependent and not without risks

Common Issues
General Principles
· The defendants argue issues and impacts require individual investigation and are not common
· The plaintiffs assert the proper test is whether there is some evidence of issues common to prospective class members
· Common issues may be nuanced and varied; the exact same impacts on each class member are not required
· The shared interest of a common class need only extend to resolution of common issues
90-95% Participation Argument
· The defendants claim 90-95% of the proposed classes have no interest in the action
· The plaintiffs respond that a lower degree of damage doesn't establish over-inclusiveness
· Not every class member has to recover to same degree
· The defendants provide no evidence supporting their 90-95% claim
· All vaccinated employees were still forced to reveal their vaccination status and may have privacy breach interests
· Even 100% vaccination compliance doesn't reflect an absence of a claim but may reflect a coercive environment

Collective Agreements
· The defendants argue there are too many collective agreements/employees in the proposed classes
· Plaintiffs point out fundamental inconsistency: defense wants court to interpret Mr. Ferguson's collective agreement while simultaneously arguing court cannot/should not interpret collective agreements

Privacy Breach and Charter Issues
· Regarding reasonable expectation of privacy and privacy breach arguments
· Proposed Charter issues are overarching and affect everyone

Aggravated Damages
· The defendants argue aggravated damages are unsuitable for a civil claim
· The Plaintiffs frame damages around Charter breaches
· The Court could choose not to certify aggravated damages as common issue without refusing to certify an entire class
· Class action certification can't be denied because sub-classes of damages may exist
· Section 7 of Class Proceedings Act allows assessment for different damages
· Defendants’ objection: claimed plaintiffs already conceded aggravated damages were an individual issue, not common issue
· Plaintiffs’ response: disagreed with that characterization; position unchanged
· The defendants noted the plaintiffs did not object when they orally stated the plaintiffs had conceded damages were individual
· The judge asked defendants’ counsel for their objection/concern; they would advise court in the afternoon

System-Wide vs. Contract-Based Approach
· The plaintiffs characterize the action as a system-wide question about government action, not a contract-by-contract inquiry
· The plaintiffs argue the defendants are trying to turn a certification hearing into a determination on merits

Duplication of Claims
· The defendants assert the plaintiffs are duplicating claims already decided through judicial reviews or arbitration
· The plaintiffs respond that neither labor arbitration nor judicial review can address the issues outlined in their claim

Complexity and Preferable Procedure
· The defendants emphasized the breadth and complexity of the claims with multiple employers, unions, and collective agreements
· The plaintiffs argue this is exactly why class action is the preferable option—it answers questions once and for all instead of repeatedly
· The most efficient response to complexities is answering the question once in class action rather than hundreds of tribunals with potentially different outcomes
· Individual tribunals would still not address questions regarding government's province-wide actions affecting thousands of workers
· The commonality question should be answered once, then individual damages looked at
· The court has many tools to manage large-scale litigation; complexity is not a reason to deny certification

Representative Plaintiffs and Litigation Plan
Representative Plaintiffs
· Being a representative plaintiff is not onerous burden
· Representatives do not need to be perfect; it is not a contest for "best possible representative"
· The only requirement: no conflicts and fair representation of the class
· Affidavits were similarly worded to meet statutory requirements and address similar issues
· Similarity of phrasing is not evidence of misunderstanding

Counsel Suitability
· Plaintiffs’ chosen counsel has extensive union experience
· Has managed policy disputes with positive resolutions with very large organizations
· Has managed thousands of documents
· Directly experienced regarding specific issues in this case
· Career experience requires managing large teams, complex issues, and bringing resolution
· This is counsel's first class action, but the plaintiffs argue that's not the test—the test is whether counsel is competent to bring the action forward
· The plaintiffs note they have brought the case this far and can activate other legal networks if/when needed
· If "one man law firm" is the only impediment, the plaintiffs request the court certify subject to a litigation plan that resolves the issue to the court's satisfaction

Litigation Plan Criticisms
· The defendants complained the litigation plan not thorough enough (lacking dates, etc.)
· The plaintiffs respond that the court has supervisory role in managing case conferences, timelines, etc., which exist for building litigation plans
· The standard being advanced by the defendants seems to require perfection with all dates, evidence, etc. pre-planned
· The plaintiffs argue the litigation plan is a living, evolving document, supported by case law

Opt-Out Process
· The defendants raised concerns about the opt-out process
· The plaintiffs assert this would be simple to address
· The existence of potential opt-outs is not a basis to deny certification
Additional Issues

Cabinet Immunity
· The plaintiffs argue cabinet immunity is an issue for the courts, not the certification hearing
· This is not a basis to deny certification

Mr. Ferguson's Remarks
· Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to defense's characterization
· Noted Mr. Ferguson asked Mr. Rustad a question without stating his own position or advocating a particular outcome
· The defendants raised other concerns regarding some social media posts

Final Arguments on Charter Damages
Defendants’ Position
· After conclusion of the plaintiffs’ response, the defendants addressed objections regarding individual damages
· The pointed to case law illustrating why they assert Charter damages are an individual issue, not a common one
· They argue Charter breaches concern individual rights, not common issues
· They concede this would not bar certification alone but submit it's not the only issue

Plaintiffs’ Response
· The cases cited by defendants (involving strip searches in custody/prisons) are not appropriate to this case
· Those cases did not establish blanket proposition that Charter damages cannot be a common issue

Conclusion
· Court concluded the hearing after a total of 15 days of submissions since April 2025
· Justice Burke advised she will reserve judgment and provide it in due course

[Regina Watteel @ReginaWatteel]

It’s more than perceived bias — the record shows evidence of it.

- Co-chaired the Action Committee on Court Operations with Justice Minister Lametti, relying mainly on one-sided PHAC input (minutes heavily redacted).

- Directed full vaccination for Supreme Court courtroom staff in fall 2021 — aligning the Court with the same federal public-service vaccine rules that triggered the Freedom Convoy.

-Publicly condemned the convoy as “anarchy,” “hostage”-taking and “deplorable,” then refused to recuse himself from the Emergencies Act appeal.

Two courts have already found the invocation unconstitutional. The decision to hear the government’s appeal anyway, with Wagner remaining on the panel, is a choice the Court did not have to make.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

The math doesn't add up. Who benefits from 'free' election vaccines? Who benefits from politically mandated ones for that matter either? Not the public. The politicians, maybe. Pharma certainly. More trenchant drug analysis from @AKECassels #bcpoli

[Alan Cassels @AKECassels]

Comment: Who's really paying for the 'free' shingles vaccine? https://t.co/FVS8pzntaF via @timescolonist

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

This is about the @bcndp government bitterly defending its dystopian 'No Jab, No Job' policy. Our members, 5 years later, continue to fight it because of the dangerous precedent it would set to allow it to stand unchallenged. #medicalprivacy #bodilyautonomy

[Zorba @zorbadud]

@bcpsef @bcndp https://t.co/E4mpjhSeOa

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

@CHEK_News The B.C government violated freedom of conscience and wrongfully dismissed public servants. The plaintiffs will demonstrate that.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

Update in the fight against the @bcndp's COVID-19 vaccine mandates. More details are required and the pleadings will be amended. The B.C government violated freedom of conscience and wrongfully dismissed public servants. The plaintiffs will demonstrate that. #bcpoli

[CHEK News @CHEK_News]

A group of 14 former B.C. government employees have been given 30 days to amend their claim that being let go for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine infringed on their Charter rights.

https://t.co/3QtYHVtGWL

[CHEK News @CHEK_News]

A group of 14 former B.C. government employees have been given 30 days to amend their claim that being let go for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine infringed on their Charter rights.

https://t.co/3QtYHVtGWL

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

@allevatoc @bcndp @Dave_Eby @DrAnnaKindy That's fine. We are for medical freedom. Just not mandates.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

@allevatoc @bcndp @Dave_Eby @DrAnnaKindy That's fine. We are for medical freedom. Just not mandates.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

The @bcndp narrowly won Vaccine Mandate Election #1 in 2024. Will they win a Vaccine Mandate Election #2 in 2026? Is there any juice left to squeeze in this divisive topic? Anything it seems to distract from @Dave_Eby's actual track record.

For the record, @DrAnnaKindy is a courageous and principled medical professional who has stood with B.C. public servants and healthcare workers since the beginning of the BCNDP's COVID-19 vaccine mandate fiasco. @UHCWBC #medicalprivacy #bodilyautonomy

[BC NDP @bcndp]

Meet Anna Kindy, the BC Conservatives' 'health' critic.

Vaccine misinformation made the pandemic worse and has cost Canada its measles elimination status.

Lorne Doerkson should fire her today. B.C. can't afford conservative chaos and health care cuts.

[Stewart Babineau @OkanaganStu]

@bcpsef @bcndp @Dave_Eby @DrAnnaKindy The NDP also lost many of its arbitration cases relating to Covid-19 mandates. In some cases, they had to make significant payouts.

Covid-19 shots do NOT prevent Contraction and Transmission and no organization states it does.

WHO, BC and Canada CDC, Pfizer all day it doesn’t

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

What's old is new again. #VaccineMandateElection 2026.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

For the story behind the most talked-about video of the @bcndp's 2024 B.C. election campaign, check out this article by @KelownaNow 👇 #BCElxn2024 #bcpoli #medicalprivacy #bodilyautonomy

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

This resort to the COVID vaccine mandate election wedge issue by the @bcndp in 2026 has the whiff of desperation about it. Especially after Fauci's unmasking as the fraud and liar that he is. Does the average B.C. voter go for it anymore? #bcpoli

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

It started in 2021, but the @bcndp can't resist the lure of their COVID-19 vaccine mandate wedge issue. They decided to make it the centre piece of their 2024 re-election campaign.

Maybe it will work? British Columbians will decide. #VaccineMandateElection #BCElxn2024 #bcpoli #cdnpoli

[Jeff Evely - the Magnanimous GenX'er Male @JeffEvely]

The guy who thew the entire Canadian military under the bus on behalf of the Liberal government, by imposing the vaccine mandate that violated of the rights and freedoms they'd sworn to defend, is complaining about being thrown under the bus by the Liberal government.

The irony is not lost on me.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

@jsam10983741 He already barred critical thinking, principled public servants from public sector employment with COVID vaccine mandates. So yes, he will.

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

Every Canadian public health official, like the revered Dr. Henry, so deified by the fawning, state-captured Canadian corporate media, ought to join him there. #Liars

[Jeffrey A Tucker @jeffreytucker]

Well, Anthony Fauci probably should not, in his diary, have called Dr. Peter Navarro "crazy" and "asshole" because now we have the most rip-roaring, impassioned, fact-filled autobiographical account of the Covid years yet written, by a man who was at the White House, saw it all unfold, and resisted Fauci at every turn. Navarro bravely fought the lockdowns, the bans on therapeutics, the masking of kids and the school closures, and the constant streams of lies. He did it in government and with the media from very early on. Now his book is coming to print. It's a barn burner, I promise, and has what we've been missing: the morally passionate denunciation and rhetorical prosecution of Fauci for which we've waited six years.

And by the way, I say this as a person who disagrees with him on the travel ban. That issue aside, Navarro has been proven correct on every point. This thrilling book is his revenge. @RealPNavarro

https://t.co/39l3vCn8Yo

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

Back to normal in B.C. politics. Vaccine mandates are probably the one thing the leading parties now agree on in this election #bcpoli #medicalprivacy #bodilyautonomy

[Odessa Orlewicz @OdessaOrlewicz]

@NVanCaroline

[The Vancouver Sun @VancouverSun]

'B.C. is in a crisis': Number of patients waiting for surgery, dying on waitlists increasing, new data show https://t.co/vkIOMYzXmD

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

#itstime

[Toronto Sun @TheTorontoSun]

STUDIN: Allison Inquiry must now lead to resignations and full public inquiry https://t.co/RUxbR0N7iD

[BCPS Employees for Freedom @bcpsef]

Fired for exercising rights to #medicalprivacy and #bodilyautonomy, too.

[Amy Eileen Hamm @preta_6]

One of the worst parts about living in BC is that professionals are muzzled, censored, intimidated, and sometimes persecuted & fired for exercising their right to free expression.

Wokes aren't creating some inclusive utopia in BC: they're making it an unbearable place to live.

[Joe Warmington @joe_warmington]

https://t.co/hMOyTxEoFO