Forcing Canadians to be vaccinated – a medical treatment under threat of prosecution (fines) violates Canada’s supreme law. Quebec and other provinces who are requiring vaccine passports are violating Canadians’ right to refuse medical treatment & the right to make “reasonable medical choices” without threat of criminal prosecution.
Threatening to fine a person in Canada for not having a vaccine passport at a public venue or workplace amounts to the governments depriving Canadians of their constitutional rights under “threat of criminal prosecution”.
Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that any federal or provincial law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is of no force or effect. Statutes which conflict with the Constitution are invalid in the most radical sense; they do not become law.
Section 7 of the Charter is part of Canada’s supreme law – Constitution Act, 1982. Section 7. of the Charter states “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.” Section 7 of the Charter requires that laws or state actions that interfere with life, liberty and security of the person conform to the principles of fundamental justice.
The wording of section 7 says that it applies to “everyone”. This includes all people within Canada, including non-citizens.
Section 7 rights and Canada’s supreme law are being violated by the conduct of a party other than a Canadian government body – e.g. the UN / WHO. The government need only be a participant or complicit in the conduct threatening the right, where the violation must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the government actions.
Canada’s Department of Justice states:
“The liberty interest protected under section 7 has at least two aspects. The first aspect is directed to the protection of persons in a physical sense and is engaged when there is physical restraint such as imprisonment or the threat of imprisonment (R. v. Vaillancourt,  2 S.C.R. 636 at 652), or state compulsions or prohibitions affecting one’s ability to move freely (R. v. Heywood,  3 S.C.R. 761 at 789). The physical restraint can be quite minor to engage the liberty component.”
s. 7 of the Constitution of Canada includes the right to refuse medical treatment & the right to make “reasonable medical choices” without threat of criminal prosecution.
“All individuals physically present in Canada will benefit from the protection of section 7 (Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration,  1 S.C.R. 177 at page 202; Charkaoui (2007), supra, at paragraphs 17-18).”
2. Life, liberty and security of the person
(ii) Right to liberty
“Section 7 protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence” (Godbout v. Longueuil (City),  3 S.C.R. 844 at paragraph 66; Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 55 at paragraph 49). Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged (A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, at paragraphs 100-102; Blencoe, supra at paragraphs 49-54; Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 45) This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment (A.C., supra, at paragraphs 100-102, 136) and the right to make “reasonable medical choices” without threat of criminal prosecution (e.g. fines): R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34 at paragraph 18. It may also include the ability to choose where one intends to live (Godbout, supra), as well as a protected sphere of parental decision-making for parents to ensure their children’s well-being, e.g., a right to make decisions concerning a child’s education and health (B.(R.), supra, at paragraph 80).” Department of Justice https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html