Western vaccine policy boosted by Seneca College court decision: Lawyer

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice has sided with Seneca College in a non-binding, preliminary procedure over the school’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Seneca’s mandate — and the students’ challenge — bear similarities to a lawsuit brought by five Western students, claiming the university does not have the authority to implement its vaccine rules.

Among several points laid out in court filings acquired by CTV News London, the Western complaint seeks to apply a permanent injunction preventing the school from collecting students’ vaccination information, and order Western get rid of all records already gathered.

“The question put to Western is not whether it’s the right thing to do,” says local defense lawyer Gord Cudmore, who is not involved in the case. “The question is: do they have a legal right to do it?”

Based on the Seneca decision, Western appears to have the edge, says Cudmore.

“The students have every right to bring the challenge and argue it. It’s not frivolous,” says Cudmore. “But I don’t think it will win the day.”

One of the lawyers representing the Western students says their lawsuit will go ahead, despite the Seneca decision.

“The two cases are completely different,” says Lisa Bildy, an attorney with Libertas Law in London, Ont. “Seneca’s was a motion for a temporary injunction based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms…Our lawsuit is based entirely on Western’s violation of privacy legislation.”

The notice of application viewed by CTV News London does not reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in it, instead focusing primarily on legislation laid out in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In addition, the claim cites Section 38(2) of the act, which states “no person shall collect person information on behalf of an institution unless the collection is…necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity.”

The claim also states that because no other Ontario university requires vaccination, it is not necessary for providing post-secondary programming.

The case is scheduled for a hearing to weigh its merits on Sept. 19.