Former municipal employees launch $125M lawsuit over vaccine mandates

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice building can be seen on Tuesday, April 13, 2021. (Michelle Maluske/CTV Windsor)

Several former municipal employees from municipalities across Ontario, including locally, have filed a $125.9M class action lawsuit in connection to the Province of Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which the plaintiffs claim were unconstitutional.

In a statement of claim signed on Feb. 16, the plaintiffs – who are represented by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati – say “the sending home on unpaid leave, and/or firing of the plaintiffs, for declining COVID-19 vaccines, were and continue to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect.”

Court documents obtained by CTV News Kitchener show the plaintiffs are all former municipal employees from various municipalities and municipal commissions who are mainly “first responders and essential workers in policing, fire fighting, ambulance, paramedic, transit, sanitation services and other essential services in Ontario.”

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, pursuant to section 24 of the Charter for violations of their Charter rights and constitutional and common-law torts inflicted on them in the amount of $50,000 for each defendant under tort of intimidation, $100,000 against each defendant under the tort of conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights $100,000 each in the tort of constitutional violations in violating the plaintiffs’ pre-Charter constitutional rights.

The lawsuit also seeks $200,000 each per plaintiff for the intentional infliction of mental distress and anguish and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 per plaintiff.

In total, each person involved in the lawsuit is seeking $550,000 in compensation.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and a statement of defence has not been filed.

The statement of claim further alleges that anyone dismissed from their employment for refusing to be “vaccinated” with the COVID-19 inoculations is unconstitutional in that there is no “source of jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867 to decree and medical treatment.”

Among those included in the lawsuit are former employees from the City of Guelph Fire Department, the City of Guelph Paramedic Services, and the City of Cambridge Fire Department.

The plaintiffs include former employees from the Toronto Transit Commission, City of Toronto Fire Services, City of Toronto Police, City of Hamilton Health Services, City of Ottawa Aquatics and the Toronto District School Board, among others.

Members from multiple police, fire and paramedic services across the province are included.

The statement of claim further alleges the vaccine mandates violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in that it violates the right to bodily and psychological integrity.

It further alleges vaccine mandates and PCR tests are not scientifically or medically based.

“A further declaration that the introduction of ‘vaccine passports’, and their compulsory use to obtain goods and services, as well as travel on trans-provincial routes by air, train, and water vehicles, is unconstitutional and of no force,” the statement of claim reads.

Galati declined to comment on the lawsuit when asked by CTV News Kitchener.

A spokesperson from the City of Guelph said they are unaware of the lawsuit.

“I can tell you that were a matter before the courts, we would not be able to comment, but again, in this case, we are unaware of any lawsuit to comment on,” City of Guelph strategic communications manager Laura Mousseau said.

The City of Cambridge did not immediately reply when asked for a comment.

EMPLOYMENT LAWYER REACTS TO LAWSUIT

Toronto-based employment lawyer Howard Levitt, who is not involed in the case, said that, in his opinion, this is an ill-fated class action lawsuit.

Levitt noted that the amount the lawsuit is seeking is ‘outrageous in any event.”

Levitt pointed to a case he won in September 2022 including Seneca College in which mandatory vaccination policies are legal in this province.

“That, and a series of other cases, mostly arbitration cases, have ruled against them, so they don’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of success in this case,” said Levitt.

“What’s going to end up happening is the court is going to toss the case for the unionized employees and award cost against them for that, and the non-union employees may have a long case against them, but at the end of the day, they are going to lose,” said Levitt.

He added: “The law makes clear that employers are obligated to have safe workplaces.”

The statement of claim does not break down if the employees are unionized or not but according to Levitt, if they are unionized they cannot sue in a class action in court, they can only grieve through a grievance procedure.

For employees that are non-union, Levitt said the law is “squarely against them” due to precedent set in other cases, and at the end of the day they will lose.

Levitt said those involved may face costs against them after the case is thrown out of court.