University of Lethbridge lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine policy thrown to court IG News

Irshadgul News report,

A judge on the King’s Bench has dismissed a court case against the University of Lethbridge for its COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The lawsuit was filed last December by Hayley Nasichuk-Dean, who was described as an L student from the fall of 2019 to the fall of 2021. She was also a member of the U of L football team.

According to the suit, she registered as a student for the 2021-22 academic year, hoping to finish her studies by the end of the school year and then proceed with veterinary studies.

Read more:

Student files suit against University of Lethbridge over COVID-19 vaccine policy

When the U of L implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for students and staff to attend in-person classes last November, Nasichuk-dean asked for an exemption based on their religious beliefs.

Story continues below ad

Her requests were denied, as a result of which she was unable to take the course that year. He then claimed that the policy violated his right to life, liberty and religious liberty.

In the lawsuit, she asked for a declaration from the Court of King’s Bench that the vaccination policy violates Section 7, 2A of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She also asked for a declaration that denying her requests for religious exemptions is illegal and a violation of Section 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Click to play video: 'Litigation begins against Alberta Health Services over vaccine mandate'

Alberta Health Services sued over vaccine mandate

Trial begins against Alberta Health Services over vaccine mandate – October 25, 2021

Justice David von Hartigan dismissed the case at a hearing in May, saying he had no jurisdiction over the matter.

He also said that the court cannot accept the declarations requested by the Nasichuk-Dean because the vaccination policy is no longer in force. LKU canceled the policy in March.

Story continues below ad

“MS. Nasichuk-Dean’s vaccination status, whatever it may be, will have no bearing on his ability to attend university in the future. In that regard, the issue has become an academic enterprise,” Hartigan said in a statement posted Tuesday. said in the decision.

“Even though this court had jurisdiction to issue such a declaration, the fact that Ms. Nasichuk-Dean could have sought a remedy under the Alberta Human Rights Act and refused to do so amounts to a declaration against Is.”

Read more:

Alberta Lawyer on Hinshaw for COVID-19 . Accused of ‘controlling the narrative’ around

Hartigan also said any announcements made may lack context because the circumstances are too specific to the U of L’s short-term vaccination policy to address a public health crisis. The vaccination policy was created in the context of an ever-changing pandemic, and took into account the efficacy and availability of vaccines, Hartigan said.

“It’s hard to imagine a similar set of circumstances arising again,” Hartigan said. “As such, a declaration on such a narrow and specific factual context would be of no public utility in the future.”

-With files from Emily Mertz, Global News

© 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.


Most Popular