Interview with a Public Servant who Fights Discrimination Over Medical Information - on His Own, Without the Union - setting a historical precedent for all of Canadians. Support His Efforts!
YouTube Video + Post-interview Q&A + My efforts to investigate why PIPSC decided to NOT challenge the Vaccination Mandate even for remotely working members.
Update for IVIM substack subscribers:
The following article in my other, evidence gathering, substack has been updated with the latest research finding regarding the long-term efficacy of COVID vaccines. The conclusion from it is quoted below. Have a look, and make a good use of it!
Conclusion: The protective effect of COVID-19 immunization was observed up to one year after the first symptoms. After one year, the effect was reversed, showing an increased risk of death for those vaccinated. These results highlight the need for further research to elucidate the factors that contribute to these findings.
Main feature:
Below is the promised interview with André Givoque, a remotely working public servant I mentioned in my previous article. André, who has two young children, is the sole income earner in his household. Having recently taken on a substantial mortgage for their first home in the suburbs of Ottawa, he was suspended without pay from November 2021 to July 2022 for refusing to disclose his medical status to his employer. Now, he is fighting back against what he believes to be an outrageous violation of his fundamental constitutional rights.
His union (PSAC) informed him that they would not support his case, justifying their decision by claiming the case lacked historical precedent and had little chance of success. Left with no choice, André embarked on this legal battle entirely on his own, investing his own time and money—despite already losing nine months of salary to his employer's actions. Today, he is on the verge of achieving a groundbreaking legal victory for all Canadians who have faced similar discrimination by their employers.
Public servant's landmark case challenges discrimination in the era of advanced technology using the interpretation of "genetic characteristics" under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
To give credit to André’s union (PSAC), their Legal/Employer Relationship Office offered to file a grievance on his behalf against his employer on the grounds that he worked remotely—agreeing that the employer's demand for vaccination as a condition of continued work clearly unreasonable. Many of you may know that this grievance (PSAC vs. Canada Post) was recently resolved in PSAC’s favour.
In contrast, as some of you may also know, my union (PIPSC), for reasons that remain unclear and which I am now trying to investigate and will report on in a future article (currently in draft form), decided not to file grievances for PIPSC members who also worked remotely — the decision that had severe consequences for affected PIPSC members, including suicidal thoughts among some of them, as discussed in my interview with one of them.
Have a listen to André’s story, presented in two parts. In the first, he shares his life before the Vaccination Mandate and how the mandate affected him and his young family. In the second part, he explains what he learned about the Canadian legal system, including how he discovered a loophole in the seemingly invincible Crown legal framework—a system often perceived as designed to deny justice to those impacted by the Crown-imposed Vaccination Mandate. André’s breakthrough hinges on the ambiguity in the definition of "genetic characteristics" under the Canadian Human Rights Act. This loophole, which he identified, now has a significant chance to bring justice to many Canadians who, like him, faced discrimination based on DNA information extracted through PCR COVID tests.
I believe André’s story of perseverance and his fight for justice is truly remarkable. If you feel the same and wish to contribute to his legal case, you’ll find a link below where you can do so:
Additionally, I’ve included my post-interview Q&A email correspondence with André, offering more details about the importance of his case and his perspective.
Part 1 (19 mins):
Part 2 (22 mins):
Post-interview Q&A email correspondence with André:
“Hi Dmitry, I'll respond to your text message here so I can colour coat my response.
Please see my response in bold below. André Givogue”
Andre, are you still open to the idea to not hire a legal company? Not any more. I've weight a lot of the pros and cons but at this stage, the deadline is January 7, 2025 for me to file my documents. The Supreme Court is a different beast on it's own. It has its own set of rules. Had I have more time and not so many different legal cases pending wouldn't have mind taking on the challenge. Instead I've retained an expert boutique law firm specializing in SCC for about 40 years. I felt at this stage, it wasn't just about me anymore and too much was at stake to mess it up. This is now a matter of public interest and my case, I feel has a strong foundation to bring these arguments over to the SCC as there is a huge gap in the interpretation of genetic characteristics. The SCC already ruled on section 1 to 7 of the GNDA and my case would give them an opportunity to rule on section 8, 9 and 10 (mainly 9 and 10).
Or even open to the idea of stopping where you are now? If I stop now, my last three years would have gone to waste. I have to exhaust all possible legal avenue before I move on to the next step. It has to be done. Sure it's not pleasant, it's annoying, it's frustrating and many more emotions but the outcome of surrendering at this stage would haunt me for the rest of my life knowing that there was still a chance of remedy at a hire court, even though it's small, it's still there. If I quit, it's zero.
You have achieved already a lot. Yes but as I said before, it's not about me anymore. It's about addressing a bad caselaw precedent and ensuring our kids and future generations to come grow in a country that has moral laws and caselaw to support it. It was important for you to do that when you were removed from the society and from work Yes, this is why I retain the law firm. It was important for me to see that they fought previous cases on the freedom side of things., I understand, even just as a way to prove yourself and your wife that nothing is lost yet. For me it was pretty much the only legal recourse I had, that could lead to a constructive outcome.
But realistically, I do not believe you have any chances to win this case. Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell. So far I've been defying a lot of odds, I've won my SST after many people told me I wouldn't. At the FCA I still won in part, which means I'm still "in" so to speak, not an absolute loss. Yet the part that was not address, needs to be addressed at the hire court. Now that all the other "distractions" from my case are gone, we can laser focus on the "genetic characteristics". I feel like there's a sliver of hope. Enough for me to believe to keep on pressing forward.
I didn't want to disappoint you saying that. I am all for freedom of speech, so all good. Like I said, not everyone will take on that battle head on. Someone's got to do it. But again I think it's extremely unlikely the legal company will help you to bring this case to the court and win it, at this stage it's only to help me write a very strong leave request. If I get pass that stage, then believe me the word is going to spread like wild fire! and then it will be just another example of some legal folks are making money on poor people like you and others. Perhaps, that said, the way I am looking at it and from my experience so far. Is that I'm paying for their expertise. Sure I got where I got so far but the SCC is the highest step, kind of like the NHL of hockey, it's got to be a team effort. So far that company was already on my short list and then I was recommended them by someone else I trust. When I jumped in on another case as observer I also notice that law firm was fighting on the side of freedom and another person vouched for them. So I trust that they will fight for my cause honestly. which is what happened with [many] other naive public servants who paid to third-party legal Services. I can't speak for the others but one think I know is that if people are desperate, it will cloud their judgement and may jump with any lawyers who say the right thing. On my end, I sought them out for their expertise, not the other way around.
The way I see it - talking to other people who went through the same crisis and trauma - is that we have to wait for what happens in United States, Australia [where newly elected governments have already denounced the unreasonable vaccination mandates imposed by previous governments], and then eventually to Canada (when the new government is elected here too). And then it all will change anyway. Maybe, but for me, I don't want to rely on that, sure if change is brought, I'll welcome it open arms. I just feel like right now, my case has a unique opportunity to address something very relevant but from a different angle that was never done before. In courts, in MSM, it will become obvious to everyone that the actions from previous governments were unreasonable/unlawful. Yes it would be great for everyone to realize the "obvious" for us but I don't want to rely on that.
You have family and two children to focus on. Indeed, and I also have to ensure they can grow in a democratic country, not a tyrannical one and for that, again, I need to exhaust all possible legal avenue, following every step, all the way to the top, by the book. No need to fight for justice any more at this moment ? Sadly, I couldn't live with myself if I don't pursue this. I have to at least try. Only then will I be able to accept and move on. Again, so far, every time my argument got properly heard, I've won. So I just want to have my arguments on "genetic characteristics" properly heard and addressed on the merits.
Thank you for your concern and feedback. I also want to thank you for all the work you are doing on your end. You're getting the voices of many heard, you share their stories, review stats and a whole lot more. I think that all together, each focusing on one area that hits home so dearly, together we will move the public opinion, we will create new case law and change will be much smoother for the ones not fully aware of what has been happening.
Thanks for this. Givoque’s case is very interesting.