Could Labour Be the Downfall of Covid Injections?
Laws were broken under the Criminal Code of Canada.
Disclaimer
I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.
Labour laws that make employers who mandated covid shots liable
By Michelle Leduc Catlin
Nov 01.24
Highlights
A shocking revelation about how laws were broken under the Criminal Code of Canada by employers who mandated poisonous substances under safety protocols with no informed consent -- and who might be accountable.
In the spring of 2023, as spokesperson for the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada, an unassuming postal worker took the stand at the Saskatchewan hearings. He was not famous or world-renowned in his field. He didn’t have millions of followers. He didn’t even have a Substack.
But Ryan Orydzuk had important information about the mandating of the so-called “vaccines” no one else seemed to have. In his testimony, Mr. Orydzuk, a Health and Safety Officer with a 50-page CV explained a surprising but overlooked aspect of Covid misconduct.
The Labour Code and Occupational Health and Safety Act may be the best opportunity to hold people accountable for illegal “vaccine” mandates. Because when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the mandates for federal employees, it was as a safety measure.
While many people have rightly gone after government, pharmaceutical companies, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, few people seem to understand labour laws that make employers who mandated the shots liable.
And this is where Mr. Orydzuk comes in
His hands-on experience with health and safety issues, protocols, and labour laws, gives him a unique perspective on what happened with the mandates and who might be legally responsible. In a recent interview, he explained that when an employer mandates a health and safety protocol, the responsibility for informed consent falls to them.
The Westray Law
Informed consent is something I wrote about over 3 years ago, but I had no understanding of the transfer of responsibility that happened when employers implemented those mandates.
No longer did the responsibility fall on the person giving the injection, but rather the person ordering it as part of what falls under personal protection equipment in the work environment.
This legal accountability shifted under what is known as the Westray Law, which became part of the Criminal Code of Canada after the Westray mining disaster in 1992 where 26 workers in Nova Scotia died after an explosion.
Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task. 217.1 Criminal Code of Canada.
Due diligence
As part of his due diligence to determine the risk assessment of Covid shots, Mr. Orydzuk began researching the ingredients lists of the Pfizer and Moderna shots.
Among these, he found SM-102, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 — all registered poisons.
“The manufacturer themselves showed on both their SDS [safety data sheet] and the product information brochure, that the ingredients were for research purposes only, and never to be used in humans or animals….Health Canada knows and still approved the injection."
Right to refuse
Any worker can submit a work refusal, during which, and afterwards, no reprisals can be made. Not only did Ryan Orydzuk's employers not uphold his right to know, but they dismissed his concerns, made a mockery of his right to refuse, and suspended him indefinitely. Employees across the country were disallowed their legal right to refuse work. They were labelled non-compliant for declining a medical treatment, and were either laid off or fired.
Demand accountability
But according to Mr. Orydzuk, it’s not too late to demand accountability. In fact, until "vaccine" mandates are eliminated, we must.
It is up to each of us to take responsibility for our part in allowing this injustice, and begin to support the moral arc of the universe.
In addition, those who created and implemented these violations of bodily autonomy and human rights must be held to account.
The government and the King are legally liable for actions of Crown Agents
Since 1981, Canada Post has operated as an agent of the Crown, as is demonstrated in section 23 of the Canada Post Act. According to the government's own documentation and websites the government and King are legally liable for actions of Crown Agents.
This fact apparently separates Canada Post from other regular crown corporations. But there's another difference.
Since the Auditor General report in 2017, and the subsequent relocation of Canada Post from schedule 3 part 2 of the Financial Administration Act, to schedule 3 part 1, both financial and operational plans of the Crown corporation need the full approval of the Finance Minister and Treasury Board.
According to Mr. Orydzuk, this puts responsibility of informed consent for nearly 70,000 employees on those who approved the health and safety mandates in the first place -- the government and the Crown.
Call to action
Ryan Orydzuk has compiled a substantial body of evidence that must be examined. It is my hope that in sharing this information, others with far more understanding of legal issues will do whatever possible to test its standing.
For the rest of us, if we are to regain our agency and reclaim our rights, we must insist on these rights and ensure we do not comply with illegal and immoral policies again.
Resources
Full disclosure, live links, Mr. Orydzuk videos, links to download safety data sheets at https://www.gatheryourwits.com/post/could-labour-be-the-downfall-of-the-covid-injections TY!
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Martin Luther King Jr.
Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
law-courtcases
Comment I posted at Michelle's Blog: Thank you, Michelle! What about judges who have a duty to uphold the law in their work place, yet ruled against informed parents who did not consent to experimental m-RNA gene therapy being injected into their child/children? Can they be held accountable? TY!
Brilliant reporting. This could be where the buck stops. Oh to finally get justice.