Sakamoto v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Today was another day of arguments in the Sakamoto class action certification hearing in Alberta.
The federal government spent most of the day arguing that the lawsuit should not be certified as a class action. Importantly, they were not arguing whether the vaccines were safe or whether people were injured. Instead, they focused on technical legal arguments about whether the lawsuit has been pleaded properly.
One of their main arguments was that the misfeasance in public office allegations are too broad. They argued that the plaintiffs need to identify specific government officials and specific misconduct rather than referring generally to the government as a whole. They say the pleadings are not detailed enough to meet the legal test required for certification.
The government also challenged the reliance on the Alberta COVID Task Force report. Their position appears to be that governments are not legally obligated to follow recommendations made by advisory bodies, and they questioned how failing to adopt those recommendations could amount to misfeasance in public office.
Another issue raised was expert evidence. Government counsel reiterated that Dr. Davison is not a court recognized expert witness and argued that his opinions should not carry weight in determining certification.
The government also attacked the conspiracy, assault and battery claims. They argued that those allegations have not been pleaded with enough detail to satisfy the legal requirements necessary for certification.
One of the more surprising arguments involved the Vaccine Injury Support Program. Government counsel stated that Carrie Sakamoto applied to the program and was offered compensation. They questioned what damages remain if compensation was available through VISP. Of course, the plaintiffs may still argue that VISP compensation was inadequate or failed to fully address the losses suffered.
Overall, today’s hearing was largely focused on procedural and legal arguments rather than the underlying evidence about vaccine injuries. No final decision was made today. Justice Dilts is still deciding whether this case should be certified as a class action, not whether the plaintiffs ultimately win or lose.
The government’s main themes today were that the pleadings lack sufficient detail, that the defendants have not been identified with enough specificity, and that several of the claims do not meet the legal requirements necessary for certification.