Attorneys for Major General Dany Fortin are fighting a federal lawsuit against his client over his removal from the post of President of Canada. Coronavirus disease Vaccine distribution activities.
In the newly filed federal court documents, they said that the government’s motion to dismiss his case had no basis.
The Ministry of Defense announced in a brief statement on May 14 that Fortin will resign from his position with the Public Health Agency of Canada since November last year.
Five days later, the military police submitted his case to the Quebec Prosecutor’s Office.
Fortin’s lawyers claimed that the decision to remove him was unreasonable, lacked procedural fairness, and involved the Liberal government’s intervention in the military chain of command. They asked the court to restore his old position or equivalent.
In a debate before the court on Friday, Fortin’s lawyers stated that Wayne Eyre, the acting Chief of Defense Staff, who was recently promoted to general, succinctly conveyed the news to their clients: This is ” A fait accompli,” he told Fortin.
The submitted documents stated that the evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that the decision to remove Fortin was made by the Minister of Health, the Secretary of Defense, the Prime Minister and the clerk of the Privy Council.
However, it believes that under the military command system, the decision should be made by Al alone.
The submission stated that policymakers prevented Al from doing so, which constituted “improper political interference in the chain of military command.”
“No matter who made the decision, it is objectively unreasonable and cannot be established.”
Fortin was formally charged with a crime of sexual assault dating back to 1988 in Gatineau, Quebec. He denied any wrongdoing.
Federal lawyers believe that Fortin’s application for judicial review is too early because the appeal procedure established under the National Defense Act and the Queen’s Canadian Army regulations and orders provides adequate alternative remedies.
Fortin’s lawyers disagreed.
“In this case, the grievance procedure is not an adequate alternative remedy,” they argued.
“The appeal procedure will be meaningless, because the Canadian Armed Forces have not made relevant decisions, cannot make relevant decisions, and cannot provide effective remedies.”
In addition, the submission added that due to systemic delays, the appeal process will be time-consuming and slow.
View link »
© 2021 Canadian Press
