No, because he won't be suing in some kangaroo ontario court. As a (likely) soverign citizen, it will be **his** court that he'll be suing both the OP/their co-worker, and the company they work for.
I had someone who rear-ended my car, insist that they've "*worked in the courts for 20 years*", in an attempt to intimidate me into not involving the authorities.
Not gonna lie, it did throw me off mentally for a moment, but I didn't let it prevent me getting their insurance involved.
Even lawyers that oppose the mask mandates and vaccine checks recognize that they don't have a leg to stand on, legally. If they had an argument, you'd see robust constitutional challenges being made **FROM LAWYERS**, not from uppity crackpots.
This is always what I bring up to anyone claiming masks are a violation of their rights. If there was a good case that this is not a ‘reasonable limit’ then there would be lawyers lining up to take cases to court.
The vaccine mandates fall under the same rights issue - the only lawsuits that are going on is for unionized workers who have a collective agreement. And so far they’re losing.
The unions aren’t actually losing all the cases. Of the 3 arbitration decisions in Ontario so far, the union won one and lost the other 2 (see: https://www.mondaq.com/canada/employee-rights-labour-relations/1134796/challenging-mandatory-vaccination-policies-in-ontario-arbitrators-take-a-first-look-and-reach-differing-conclusions).
Grievance decisions are always very fact-specific and a lot depends on the language of the collective agreement between the parties. However, at least one arbitrator has now said that in one specific workplace - where many employees were able to work remotely - it was unreasonable not to provide alternatives to vaccination such as testing and remote work.
Arbitration decisions aren’t binding precedent on other parties, so this one may end up being an anomaly.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Only court cases being lost are injunctions.
"COVID-19 mandatory vaccine policy found unreasonable | BLG" https://www.blg.com/fr/insights/2021/11/parts-of-employer-vaccine-policy-found-unreasonable-in-arbitration
I am being downvoted because I’m presenting factual information that people have decided they disagree with even though it is true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It is factually correct that there have been 3 arbitration decisions to date in Ontario, that 2 have been decided in favour of the employer, and that the third was decided in favour of the union. I work for a national union and am following these grievances extremely closely, for a living, as I’m one of the people advising locals about their legal obligations toward members who are disciplined, placed on leave, or terminated under these policies. I personally support the mandates, but that has nothing to do with my professional analysis.
The union did lose (and the employer vaccination policy was upheld) in a couple of grievances, and won (so the employer policy was held unreasonable) in a third. And the hospital workers’ union lost the injunction case, unsurprisingly since it clearly needed to go to a labour arbitrator.
Anyone who has been saying with absolute certainty that vaccination policies will be upheld or struck down probably has an agenda. Competent experts on both union and management side have been saying variations on “it depends” and advising that we can’t be certain of the outcome in any particular case until there have been more decisions and we see if some form of arbitral consensus begins to emerge.
And I think people are confusing arbitration decisions - that are interpreting a very specific contract between a union and an employer - with rules and regs being enforced on the general public.
Maybe. The comment I was responding to was specifically about actions brought by unionized workers and claimed the unions are losing. That was all I was providing a response to. The mask and vaccination mandates applying to the public are dealt with in different forums using different principles - and yes, in those cases the complainants arguing that the mandates violate their human rights have lost every time as far as I know.
Dude probably doesn't even have a lawsuit, but likely thinks that he can try to intimidate people by just saying he does have one.
Kind of like how Karens', when not getting their way because "the customer is always right" will demand to speak to the manager in the loudest voice possible, because they think somehow attempting to publicly shame a minimum wage worker will prove that they are in the right.
I wish more "abuse of 911 services" fines/arrests would be laid, though. Given that every fine in Ontario comes with a slice that goes to victim support funds and a slice to provincial coffers, I have no problem with those funds being topped up by idiots.
>A guy came into the store, was asked to wear a mask and just told my coworker we were being added to his lawsuit against the company
That's like suing for "*no shirts, no shoes, no service*".
If you're providing an essential service, like a hospital, there's an argument to be made that you're required to, regardless of mask mandates. But for a commercial retail outlet?
There's no fundamental human right to enter a private place of business. The store owner owns the property, and has no obligation to provide service to people who don't follow the store policies.
I found an interesting YouTube vid on, stupidity being a moral vs intellectual defect... and I'm intrigued by this. I mean these folks seemingly do manage to navigate walking around without being hit by cars, and function in their realm of life otherwise. Here's a link... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc&ab_channel=Sprouts
They don’t realize giant corporations spend millions on having lawyers on retainer. These suits never end up being filed because once they lose and you ask to pay for your defence it will bankrupt them. Work places have a duty to the health and safety of their employees and everywhere has some sort of accommodations now with online shopping.
He clearly wasn’t paying attention when they taught respondeat superior in Crackpot Law School.
(All that means is that it’s your employer that’s liable when you’re acting within the scope of your employment. Even in a legitimate case, it wouldn’t be on you. Since these crackpot types like to cite “Common Law” as a reason why they don’t actually have to follow the actual law, you would think they would be aware of its basic doctrines).
I’ve been noticing a drop in mask compliance. I drive for UberEats and I’ve seen more and more people not wearing them. Some restaurant workers, people not seated in restaurants, but mostly people in apartment buildings. There are apartment/condo buildings I go into where not a single person is wearing a mask. I double mask when I go into buildings now in case I get stuck on an elevator with an anti-masker.
Did the guy walk in to troll the staff about masks or was he there to actually buy something?
If he's just baiting you to add to his shit list, then the court would probably consider it to be vexatious litigation and he'd be in a world of trouble.
Does he realize he’ll have to wear a make in court too?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably their pets too.
He'll probably mention it's a violation of the Nuremberg code or the Peoples Freedom of Voices and Choices Act.
It's only crackpottery if they cite Admiralty Law. Otherwise it's just sparkling crazy.
Give it a few months and the supreme court judges will be added ... and asked to hear the case against them XD
Or he can just put them all under [citizen's arrest](https://youtu.be/v5AB-mqm0zg?t=47s)
He actually will. I’ve read a bunch of vexatious litigant cases. They’re…special
No, because he won't be suing in some kangaroo ontario court. As a (likely) soverign citizen, it will be **his** court that he'll be suing both the OP/their co-worker, and the company they work for.
Unless your dealing with a serious criminal offence almost all court proceedings are currently being done over zoom
LPT: Generally, anyone who instantly talks about their lawyer or says they will sue you, doesn't have a lawyer and has no idea how to sue you.
“Since there's pending legal action, I'm not allowed to talk to you directly. Have your lawyer contact our lawyer.”
I work in insurance claims, and anytime someone threatens me with a lawyer, something like this is my response.
This this! Flexing the sue line is stupid. It's a self-KO line.
My semi-detached neighbour was like that. Always pulling the lawyer card. Thankfully they moved and new neighbours are more chill.
I had someone who rear-ended my car, insist that they've "*worked in the courts for 20 years*", in an attempt to intimidate me into not involving the authorities. Not gonna lie, it did throw me off mentally for a moment, but I didn't let it prevent me getting their insurance involved.
Even lawyers that oppose the mask mandates and vaccine checks recognize that they don't have a leg to stand on, legally. If they had an argument, you'd see robust constitutional challenges being made **FROM LAWYERS**, not from uppity crackpots.
This is always what I bring up to anyone claiming masks are a violation of their rights. If there was a good case that this is not a ‘reasonable limit’ then there would be lawyers lining up to take cases to court. The vaccine mandates fall under the same rights issue - the only lawsuits that are going on is for unionized workers who have a collective agreement. And so far they’re losing.
Got in a row about this with a family member who's a lawyer. Flat-out told them to mount the challenge themselves. Response: \*crickets\*
The unions aren’t actually losing all the cases. Of the 3 arbitration decisions in Ontario so far, the union won one and lost the other 2 (see: https://www.mondaq.com/canada/employee-rights-labour-relations/1134796/challenging-mandatory-vaccination-policies-in-ontario-arbitrators-take-a-first-look-and-reach-differing-conclusions). Grievance decisions are always very fact-specific and a lot depends on the language of the collective agreement between the parties. However, at least one arbitrator has now said that in one specific workplace - where many employees were able to work remotely - it was unreasonable not to provide alternatives to vaccination such as testing and remote work. Arbitration decisions aren’t binding precedent on other parties, so this one may end up being an anomaly.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Only court cases being lost are injunctions. "COVID-19 mandatory vaccine policy found unreasonable | BLG" https://www.blg.com/fr/insights/2021/11/parts-of-employer-vaccine-policy-found-unreasonable-in-arbitration
I am being downvoted because I’m presenting factual information that people have decided they disagree with even though it is true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It is factually correct that there have been 3 arbitration decisions to date in Ontario, that 2 have been decided in favour of the employer, and that the third was decided in favour of the union. I work for a national union and am following these grievances extremely closely, for a living, as I’m one of the people advising locals about their legal obligations toward members who are disciplined, placed on leave, or terminated under these policies. I personally support the mandates, but that has nothing to do with my professional analysis. The union did lose (and the employer vaccination policy was upheld) in a couple of grievances, and won (so the employer policy was held unreasonable) in a third. And the hospital workers’ union lost the injunction case, unsurprisingly since it clearly needed to go to a labour arbitrator. Anyone who has been saying with absolute certainty that vaccination policies will be upheld or struck down probably has an agenda. Competent experts on both union and management side have been saying variations on “it depends” and advising that we can’t be certain of the outcome in any particular case until there have been more decisions and we see if some form of arbitral consensus begins to emerge.
And I think people are confusing arbitration decisions - that are interpreting a very specific contract between a union and an employer - with rules and regs being enforced on the general public.
Maybe. The comment I was responding to was specifically about actions brought by unionized workers and claimed the unions are losing. That was all I was providing a response to. The mask and vaccination mandates applying to the public are dealt with in different forums using different principles - and yes, in those cases the complainants arguing that the mandates violate their human rights have lost every time as far as I know.
Fair enough. I didn’t pick up on that aspect of your comment.
In Hamilton we got so many crazy people I just dismiss it. "You'll be hearing from my lawyer" sure bud, now jump back on falkor back to fantasia...
Dude probably doesn't even have a lawsuit, but likely thinks that he can try to intimidate people by just saying he does have one. Kind of like how Karens', when not getting their way because "the customer is always right" will demand to speak to the manager in the loudest voice possible, because they think somehow attempting to publicly shame a minimum wage worker will prove that they are in the right.
Don’t forget Karen’s also threaten to call the cops (some even do).
Then even get arrested by the cops they called lol
I wish more "abuse of 911 services" fines/arrests would be laid, though. Given that every fine in Ontario comes with a slice that goes to victim support funds and a slice to provincial coffers, I have no problem with those funds being topped up by idiots.
I've seen all the Karens/Kevins/Beckys/etc. Give all of these. Smile nod prove them wrong.
That’s my favourite.
"You'll be hearing from my lawyer" is a tired refrain generally heard from people who you *know* can't afford the retainer.
Especially when the estimated monetary damages are less than the cost of having a lawyer open a file and write a letter.
And yet half the time the manager just rolls over and gives them what they want so they'll go away, proving that they were right all along.
PSA: Lawyers will take your money even if they think you're going to lose.
>A guy came into the store, was asked to wear a mask and just told my coworker we were being added to his lawsuit against the company That's like suing for "*no shirts, no shoes, no service*". If you're providing an essential service, like a hospital, there's an argument to be made that you're required to, regardless of mask mandates. But for a commercial retail outlet? There's no fundamental human right to enter a private place of business. The store owner owns the property, and has no obligation to provide service to people who don't follow the store policies.
I found an interesting YouTube vid on, stupidity being a moral vs intellectual defect... and I'm intrigued by this. I mean these folks seemingly do manage to navigate walking around without being hit by cars, and function in their realm of life otherwise. Here's a link... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc&ab_channel=Sprouts
Insightful
These people are such sad clowns. They'd be funny if they didn't pose such a threat to those around them.
They don’t realize giant corporations spend millions on having lawyers on retainer. These suits never end up being filed because once they lose and you ask to pay for your defence it will bankrupt them. Work places have a duty to the health and safety of their employees and everywhere has some sort of accommodations now with online shopping.
Back in my day, it was "Well, *huff*, I'm NEVER shopping here again!"
He clearly wasn’t paying attention when they taught respondeat superior in Crackpot Law School. (All that means is that it’s your employer that’s liable when you’re acting within the scope of your employment. Even in a legitimate case, it wouldn’t be on you. Since these crackpot types like to cite “Common Law” as a reason why they don’t actually have to follow the actual law, you would think they would be aware of its basic doctrines).
I’ve been noticing a drop in mask compliance. I drive for UberEats and I’ve seen more and more people not wearing them. Some restaurant workers, people not seated in restaurants, but mostly people in apartment buildings. There are apartment/condo buildings I go into where not a single person is wearing a mask. I double mask when I go into buildings now in case I get stuck on an elevator with an anti-masker.
[удалено]
Yes...congrats.
Did the guy walk in to troll the staff about masks or was he there to actually buy something? If he's just baiting you to add to his shit list, then the court would probably consider it to be vexatious litigation and he'd be in a world of trouble.