Justice Thomas Christie of the Court of Queen's Bench said the four applicants were not being forced to do anything, as they had argued.
"In what can only be described as a rambling eight pages of stated 'grounds' in the application, counsel cast the underlying claim as if the applicants are being forced to do something against their will," Christie wrote in his decision, released on Thursday.
"They are not."
...
He also cited recent case law on the subject. In one decision, the court noted: "They are not being forced to get vaccinated; they are being forced to choose between getting vaccinated and continuing to have an income on the one hand, or remaining unvaccinated and losing their income on the other."
Another court stated, "what is at stake for the Applicants here is not forcible vaccination but rather the consequences of one's choice to remain unvaccinated."
"In what can only be described as a rambling eight pages of stated 'grounds' in the application, counsel cast the underlying claim as if the applicants are being forced to do something against their will," Christie wrote in his decision, released on Thursday.
"They are not."
...
He also cited recent case law on the subject. In one decision, the court noted: "They are not being forced to get vaccinated; they are being forced to choose between getting vaccinated and continuing to have an income on the one hand, or remaining unvaccinated and losing their income on the other."
Another court stated, "what is at stake for the Applicants here is not forcible vaccination but rather the consequences of one's choice to remain unvaccinated."
