Canadian Lawyer on Vaccine passports
Awake Canada | August 27, 2021

“In this video, Nicholas [Wansbutter] [Stratford Ontario lawyer Nicholas Wansbutter] discusses the illegality of vaccine passports and denying entry into establishments from vaccination status. Not mentioned in this video is an upcoming filing from Rocco Galati, one of Canada’s top constitutional lawyers, on an injunction on these passports, UNTIL his court filing against Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and the federal government has its day in court. If you are a business that will enforce this, you can and will be liable to anyone that sues your business.”

Note: this interview is edited from a longer interview. In these segments he is talking about the Criminal Code and Charter of Rights violations. The publisher awakecanada.org has posted images of the documents he is quoting which is very helpful.

Image at 0:20

He is quoting from a legal text:

To be legally effective, consent must be freely given: Therefore, even if the complainant consented, or her conduct raises a reasonable doubt about her non-consent, circumstances may arise which call into question what factors prompted her apparent consent. The Code defines a series of conditions under which the law will deem an absence of consent in cases of assault, notwithstanding the complainant’s ostensible consent or participation. As enumerated in s. 265(3) [he says “s. 263(3)” in error], these include submission by reason of force, fear, threats, fraud or the exercise of authority, and codify the long-standing common law rule that consent given under fear or duress is ineffective: see G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983), at pp. 551-61. . . .

Image at 1:13

He quotes the above:

265. . . .
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority

Just to summarize some of the points he makes:

Consent given under fear or duress is not consent.

The implementation of a vaccine passport is the exercise of authority.

If they receive the injection because they felt they would be prevented from living a normal life, then they did not consent to that medical treatment

Therefore that is a clear assault in his view.

Any physician who takes part in that is a party to assault.

The Hippocratic Oath requires that physicians do no harm.

The vaccine passport is injurious to the sanctity of the individual person guaranteed under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And he says that the case law makes it clear that therefore this is an assault.

That discussion is about assault under the Criminal Code which you can find here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

Quoting from section 265:

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

. . .

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html#h-40 and he referred to Section 7:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

He explains more about other approaches in this interview.

---