On June 20, 2025, I had the honour of testifying at the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) during the Kitchener hearings. This fourth round of NCI hearings was focused on a vital question: “Are Your Children Safe in Canada?”

My presentation began at 7 hours, 48 minutes, and 42 seconds into Day 2 of the broadcast and it was one of the most meaningful opportunities I’ve had to share my story publicly.

In my testimony, I spoke about the legal implications of compelled disclosure of genetic-related information, and how such policies can lead to genetic discrimination. I raised broader concerns about privacy, informed consent, and bodily autonomy; not just for adults, but for the long-term future of our children.

Because if we allow the government, or any institution, to demand deeply personal genetic information under threat of punishment or exclusion, what precedent does that set for our children?

If we as Canadians, and especially as parents, lose the ability to protect that boundary today, our kids may grow up in a Canada where medical privacy, genetic integrity, and the right to say “no” no longer exist.

My goal in testifying was to put these unresolved legal and human rights questions, around privacy, bodily autonomy, and the right to be heard, on the public record.

Through public awareness, I hope we can open the door to stronger protections for all Canadians, especially for future generations.

Watch My Testimony Here (Precise Start Time: 7h48m42s)

Watch André Givogue’s Testimony

Why the NCI Matters

The National Citizens Inquiry is a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that was first launched in 2023 to examine Canada’s response to COVID-19. Its purpose is threefold:

1. To listen – to Canadians impacted by government mandates and to experts who challenge the official narrative.

2. To learn – what went right, what went wrong, and what lessons we must take forward.

3. To recommend – how we can protect rights, improve governance, and uphold trust in the face of national crises.

This year's theme asked a vital question: “Are children safe in Canada?” And that resonated deeply with me, because beyond the legal arguments and technical language, this fight is about really about protecting the future of my kids and yours.

A Night to Remember

Later that evening, my wife and I attended the NCI Awards Gala, a powerful celebration of Canadians who’ve stood up for truth, transparency, and accountability. I felt humbled to be among so many people of courage, principle, and integrity, each playing their part to push back against injustice and stand up for what’s right.

Being heard, sharing my story, and placing my testimony into the public record, unfiltered and unedited, was both emotional and empowering. I was reminded that I’m not alone. Many others across this country are fighting legal, moral, and societal battles of their own, often in silence. The NCI gave us all a voice.

If You’d Like to Support

If my story resonates with you and you’d like to help me offset the legal expenses I’ve already incurred, I’ve created a fundraising page:

👉 GiveSendGo.com/AndreFightsBack

Your support allows me to continue this advocacy with strength, clarity, and focus.

Thank you for standing with me.

— André Givogue
AndreFightsBack.com

https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/live

https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/live/

Before yesterday (on May 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision. My application for leave to appeal (LTA) was dismissed with costs, meaning the Court has chosen not to hear the legal question I raised about the meaning of "genetic characteristics" under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

You can view the decision announcement here:

🔗  SCC News Release (May 15, 2025)

It’s Not the End

Although this is deeply disappointing, it is not the end of my case!

In fact, I won my argument at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) on the ground of perceived disability discrimination, and that part of my case continues before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for redetermination based on the FCA’s guidance. The CHRC had put that process on hold while we awaited the Supreme Court’s decision. Now that the leave application has been dismissed, we expect the proceedings to resume, and I will continue to press forward.

What Does This Decision Mean?

What the Supreme Court declined to hear was a distinct legal question I had raised; one that affects all Canadians:

My LTA (leave to appeal) wasn’t about the facts of my case but about asking the Supreme Court to clarify what Parliament meant when it added “genetic characteristics” as a protected ground in the CHRA. The lower courts reviewed it under a “reasonableness” standard but never addressed the underlying question of law. That’s what I was asking the Supreme Court to clarify and adjudicate.

Despite the growing importance of this issue, the Supreme Court has chosen not to engage with it at this time. My lawyers believe, and I agree, that this reflects a broader reluctance to take on pandemic-era legal questions right now. By dismissing the application for leave, the Court isn’t saying my argument lacks merit. They’re simply saying they don’t wish to weigh in regarding these issues at this stage. Unfortunately, that clarification will have to wait.

It’s a sad decision because that clarity is still missing. The CHRC rejected my complaint regarding genetic characteristics without sending it to the Tribunal. In judicial review, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal declined to weigh in on that specific issue, and now, the Supreme Court has declined to hear it too. The legal question still remains a hot potato, important enough to raise, but apparently not yet ready to be answered.

No Regrets!

While I’m disappointed, I have no regrets. I took a stand, and I did everything in my power to bring this important question forward to the highest court in our country following each steps of the law. I fought for the right to have my arguments heard and carried this issue as far as I possibly could; not just for myself, but for the millions of Canadians who were forced to disclose personal health information, undergo PCR testing, or take mRNA-based vaccines, and who were punished if they didn’t. I did it for everyone who was treated differently for refusing to carry genetic instructions in their body, a form of modern genetic discrimination the law should have addressed head-on. All that together is something to be proud of.

If you want to understand more about what led me to this point, for a deeper look at my case, and why I took this issue to the Supreme Court, you can read the full background here:
🔗 Leave to Appeal Filed with the Supreme Court of Canada

Conclusion

As my legal team noted, these issues remain, and one day the courts will have to confront them.

For now, my case continues on the ground of perceived disability. The Canadian Human Rights Commission had stayed (placed on hold) that portion pending the Supreme Court’s decision, and now that this chapter has closed, I expect it to resume shortly.

How You Can Help

📢 How You Can Help

If you believe in what I’m doing and want to help, here are two simple but powerful things you can do:

1. 🔁 Share this post. Get the word out to help spread awareness.

Share

1. 💸 Support my legal fund. Donations to my fundraiser helps offset the growing costs of this legal process so I can keep going. Every bit helps. Donate here
   👉 www.GiveSendGo.com/AndreFightsBack

   Donate Here

Thank you

Thank you to everyone who supported me, encouraged me, or shared this story along the way. The question of genetic characteristics deserves an answer and while it wasn’t heard this time, it’s not the end. I believe the conversation has only just begun and the path forward continues.

– André
AndreFightsBack.com

For those who want to check the result as soon as it’s released, you can follow it here:

🔗 SCC Decision Announcements

This decision will determine whether my case will proceed to a full hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada.

What’s at stake?

If leave is granted, the Court will address the important question of what “genetic characteristics” actually means under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA); a legal clarification that could impact privacy, discrimination protections, and bodily autonomy for all Canadians.

If leave is denied, my case will continue, but limited to the grounds of perceived disability. Either way, this battle isn’t over. I’ll have the peace of mind knowing I took this as far as our legal system allows.

For more context on why this matters, you can read my full post here:

🔗 Leave to Appeal Filed with the Supreme Court of Canada

My case information is also publicly available on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website under file number 41630:

🔗 André Gilles Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (SCC Case Info)

Thank you all for your continued support. This fight has always been about more than me. It’s about standing up for our rights, now and for future generations!

– André

AndreFightsBack.com

For those who want to check the result as soon as it’s released, you can follow it here:

🔗 SCC Decision Announcements

This decision will determine whether my case will proceed to a full hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada.

What’s at stake?

If leave is granted, the Court will address the important question of what “genetic characteristics” actually means under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA); a legal clarification that could impact privacy, discrimination protections, and bodily autonomy for all Canadians.

If leave is denied, my case will continue, but limited to the grounds of perceived disability. Either way, this battle isn’t over. I’ll have the peace of mind knowing I took this as far as our legal system allows.

For more context on why this matters, you can read my full post here:

🔗 Leave to Appeal Filed with the Supreme Court of Canada

My case information is also publicly available on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website under file number 41630:

🔗 André Gilles Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (SCC Case Info)

Thank you all for your continued support. This fight has always been about more than me. It’s about standing up for our rights, now and for future generations!

– André

AndreFightsBack.com

This wasn’t a decision I took lightly (more on that later). Although I won on the issue of perceived disability at the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court did not evaluate my other argument about "genetic characteristics" on the correctness standard of review.

I believe that issue is far too important to leave unresolved. As it stands, it’s setting a troubling precedent for all Canadians. I truly believe this is a matter of national importance and not just about me or my personal experience, but rather about protecting the rights of all of us who value privacy, bodily autonomy, fairness, and freedom. Especially about the kind of Canadian future we are leaving to our children and future generations.

Law Firm Quick Introduction and Filing

This is where it gets a bit technical, but I’ll keep it simple.

My legal team, a boutique law firm called Supreme Advocacy that specializes in Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) files, and I submitted the application on January 7, 2025 and submitted our reply on February 14, 2025. Now we wait.

For those curious, my case is now listed publicly on the Supreme Court of Canada website as file number 41630:
🔗 André Gilles Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (SCC Case Info)

Where We Are At - Roadmap

We’re at the stage where the Court Registrar prepares our application for leave, response and replies to be sent to the judges. Once the judges receive them, they will be reviewing the materials and decide whether to hear the case or not. It may take a couple of months for a decision, but this is the critical moment. If leave is granted, the full hearing would come next. You can read more about how the process works here.

About Leave Application Process

In Canada, you don’t automatically get to appeal to the Supreme Court, you have to ask for permission, which is called “leave to appeal.” The Court only accepts about 6% of applications each year, and only if the case raises a question of public or national importance.

https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2023/2023-Numbers-Statistiques-eng.html

I know it’s a big gamble for a 6% chance. That said, I believe my case stands a real chance because it raises a new issue of law: what exactly does “genetic characteristics” mean under the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Our Laws Protect Genetic Discrimination But What Does It Mean?

Our laws explicitly protect against genetic discrimination by recognizing genetic characteristics as a protected ground of discrimination. But the law doesn’t clearly define what qualifies as genetic characteristics. That gap in clarity has left the door open for confusion and conflicting interpretations. Lower courts, tribunals, and commissions have all struggled, or outright refused, to engage with the issue.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed my complaint as frivolous, denying it even the chance to be heard at the Tribunal. Other people who brought similar arguments at the Social Security Tribunal were told it was beyond their jurisdiction, and while the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in my favour on perceived disability, it didn’t engage with the genetic characteristics’ argument on the correctness standard.

It’s like a legal hot potato that no one wants to touch and keeps being passed around. This case would give the Supreme Court of Canada the opportunity to step in and clarify what it means once and for all. The law can’t protect Canadians if its key terms are left vague or avoided.

Canadians Were Forced to Disclose or Face Consequences

Millions of Canadians were forced to disclose personal health information, such as their mRNA vaccine status, undergo PCR testing and reveal their results or face consequences if they didn’t. This is especially concerning given that mRNA technology introduces genetic instructions into the body.

Many were told to comply or be excluded from work, services, sports teams, or even their own communities. It went deeper than policy; it created a profound divide in society, reaching into the heart of families. Even a friend, family member, or trusted colleague could suddenly become a social outcast, not because of who they were, but because of whether or not they carried those genetic instructions.

It allowed the government to create two classes of people, leaving one group to face stigma, exclusion, and discrimination. It became a new, modern-day form of segregation based on genetic discrimination, the very thing our laws were created to prevent.

In A Nutshell

Essentially, I’m arguing that being forced to disclose something genetic in nature, like mRNA vaccine status or PCR test results, should fall under the broader protections Parliament intended when it added “genetic characteristics” to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

Parliament deliberately left that term broad, anticipating the need to adapt to future developments. Now, with emerging technologies like mRNA and new forms of genetic data collection, the SCC is being called on to clarify what those protections actually mean in today’s context.

We need clearer guardrails in law. Right now, there's a risk that human rights protections could be interpreted too narrowly, potentially leaving individuals exposed to discrimination based on genetic information obtained in ways the law never anticipated.

We are experiencing a slow erosion of our human rights under the guise of public health and doing nothing would make things even worse. The courts have ruled on parts of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA), but not on this. That’s the legal gap we’re trying to close and not just for justice in my case, but to bring clarity and fairness to all Canadians.

Especially now, in a time of rapid medical and technological change, we need to make sure our human rights protections aren’t lagging behind. I still believe there’s hope; hope that the law can catch up with modern reality and that our human rights protections will finally reflect the modern challenges we face, especially when it comes to genetic information and privacy.

From Self-Representation to a Legal Team

Up until now, I’ve been representing myself every step of the way. From the grievances, the Social Security Tribunal, the Small Claims Court, the Human Rights Commission, to the Federal Court, and then to the Federal Court of Appeal, I’ve handled motions, filings, and arguments and more.

That’s three years of intense legal research, writing, and learning as I went, while also being placed on leave, getting back to working full-time, supporting my young family, grieving the loss of our baby boy, Dominic, who was stillborn last fall, dealing with ongoing health challenges, loosing some close friendships for not going along with the status quo over my conviction that I’m doing the right thing instead of just “moving along” and forget anything ever happened, as well as other personal legal matters.

The Supreme Court, however, is a different beast entirely. It’s a whole new level of expertise and time commitment, as it operates under its own set of complex rules, procedures and expectations. With the stakes as high as they are, not just for me, but for what this case could mean for all Canadians, I didn’t want to risk losing the opportunity to have it properly heard on the merit because of technicalities or court formatting rules. Due to strict deadlines and time constraint, I simply didn’t have the mental capacity or legal expertise to do this part alone. Alas, I’ve reached the point where I need help.

Filing an application for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court comes with significant financial and emotional weight. The cost of hiring a law firm just to prepare the leave request is around $30,000, for a 6% chance that the Court agrees to hear the case. That’s it, no guarantee of a hearing and no assurance of remedy! It’s like buying a $30,000 lottery ticket with punishing odds, where the “prize” isn’t money, but simply the chance to be heard by proceeding to the next step.

If leave is denied, the money will be gone, and the case ends there. At the very least, this will have been the furthest this legal argument has ever gone, and that, in itself, really matters. It sets a marker. It tells future litigants, lawmakers, and Canadians that this issue wasn’t abandoned.

Yet, on the other hand, the thought of not trying weighed even heavier. After three years of legal battles, if I stopped now, all of that effort would feel wasted. More than that, I couldn’t live with the regret of leaving such an important question about human rights and genetic characteristics protections go unanswered. Not just for me, but for my children and every Canadian who may face similar discrimination in the future.

Take A Stand For What’s Right!

Furthermore, I needed to know that one day, if my daughters ever ask me what I did to protect their future, I could look them in the eyes, hold their hands, and sincerely tell them that against all odds and in the face of great resistance, I took a stand for what I believed was right, and did everything in my power to pursue justice, all the way to the highest court in our country.

However, if leave is granted, it will mean preparing for a full hearing. That next step would cost at least another $50,000. After weighing all of this, my wife and I made a difficult decision to refinance our home in order to retain one of Canada’s most experienced law firms in Supreme Court matters to represent me.

Even though I now have legal representation, I remain closely involved in reviewing drafts, shaping the arguments, and making sure the core message stays true. This is still my voice and my fight, I’ve just brought in experts to help bring it forward the right way.

They bring the legal precision and experience required to navigate the Supreme Court’s complex procedures. I bring a deep understanding of the facts, the context, and everything this case has been through. Together, we’ve crafted the strongest possible application for leave to appeal. It’s a true team effort now.

The stakes are higher, the rules are tougher, and it takes more than one person to carry it forward at this level. Although it wasn’t an easy decision financially, I knew that if I was going to take this fight to the top, I had to give it everything I had, no shortcuts, no regrets!

A Personal Note

This journey hasn’t been easy. At times, it has felt long, emotional, exhausting, and even overwhelming. I know I’m doing the right thing. I simply can’t “move on” and pretend none of it happened. I’ve stayed the course because I believe this case, and what it stands for, truly matters.

On top of that, I know I’m not alone. Many of you have carried your own burdens and faced your own struggles during this time, whether it’s the weight of what happened, the search for fairness and closure, or simply the need for recognition that what was done to so many wasn’t okay.

Although many of you have been navigating your own challenges, I’m incredibly grateful to those who’ve followed along, sent kind messages, sent financial support, or simply taken the time to read these updates. Your encouragement has helped more than you know. The notes of support, the shared stories, even a few words of solidarity, remind me why this legal fight matters, gives me a sense of support and reminds me that I’m not alone in this.

Thank You

So thank you, truly, for standing alongside me in whatever way you’ve been able. Together, we’re helping move things in the right direction. Each of us, in our own way, is standing up for something bigger than ourselves. Through persistence and principle, we will create new case law, shift public awareness, and slowly but surely awaken more people to what really happened.

How You Can Help

📢 How You Can Help

If you believe in what I’m doing and want to help, here are two simple but powerful things you can do:

1. 🔁 Share this post. Get the word out to help spread awareness. The more people who understand the importance of genetic privacy, the better.
   

   Share

2. 💸 Support my legal fund. Donations to my fundraiser helps offset the growing costs of this legal process so I can keep going. Every bit helps. Donate here
   👉 www.GiveSendGo.com/AndreFightsBack

   Donate Here

Standing Together

Again, thank you for standing with me. I’ll continue doing everything I can to fight back! Not out of anger, but out of principle and hope. 😊

– André
AndreFightsBack.com

Why? Because I had the incredible opportunity to double the main character, Remy Bouchard (played by Guillaume Cyr) in Season 1, Episode 6 (“Apex”).

My scene took place in the maple syrup warehouse during a brief scuffle in front of a milk tanker. Filming this back on May 9, 2023, was such an exciting experience, and seeing it all come together now on-screen is surreal.

When I was on set, there was talk of the series being released at the end of 2024, but life got busy, and I’d completely forgotten about it until a couple of weeks ago when I started seeing trailers pop up. It reignited that spark of excitement to watch how the story was brought to life and how all the hard work behind the scenes turned into this comedy-drama show.

Working on “The Sticky” wasn’t just an awesome career highlight; it also brought back some very nostalgic memories. The filming location, right next to the military base “La Méga” in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, was where I graduated from military basic training at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruiting School in 2000. Being back in that area over 20 years later was a unique experience—it reminded me of my boot camp days and how far life has taken me since then.

The series itself is an absolute must-watch. If you’re into comedy, drama, crime, and suspense, this show offers the perfect mix of emotions to keep you hooked. It’s fun, intriguing, and full of twists that leave you wanting more.

Featuring an incredible cast, including Margo Martindale, Guillaume Cyr, Chris Diamantopoulos, Jamie Lee Curtis, and many more, the show delivers in every way. I’m so proud to have been part of it and incredibly grateful for the opportunity to work alongside such talented people.

So, if you’re looking for something new to watch, I strongly recommend “The Sticky”! It’s streaming now on Amazon Prime Video. Let me know if you spot my scene! 😉

#TheSticky #AmazonPrime #TheStickyOnPrime #GuillaumeCyr #Comedy-drama
Season 1 (6 episodes) is streaming now—go check it out!

I wanted to share an important update with you about my case. After reflecting on the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision over the past few weeks, I’ve decided to take the core issue of genetic characteristics to the Supreme Court of Canada.

While the FCA allowed my appeal in part, on the perceived disability argument, it left the primary issue of genetic characteristics unexplored. This means there’s still a significant gap in how the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) protects individuals from discrimination based on genetic information obtained through non-health-related means, like PCR tests or vaccination attestation.

Originally, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) dismissed my complaint by narrowly interpreting “genetic test” as health-related only in ignored the outcome of obtaining genetic my other means (like asking for my mRNA vaccination attestation), which leaves a bad precedent because the Supreme Court of Canada’s obiter dicta in “Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act” supports a broader interpretation, indicating that genetic information protections should not be limited to health-based genetic tests but should include information obtained by any means.

“The amendments to the CHRA also encompass a broader range of genetic information than ss. 1 to 7. First, since no definition is provided for “genetic characteristics”, the protection is not limited to a narrow health-based definition of genetic tests. Second, by protecting “genetic characteristics” rather than information disclosed by genetic tests, the amendments to the CHRA include genetic information obtained through other means. The deeming provision supports this interpretation: the CHRA specifically ensures that one cannot be forced to undergo a genetic test and that results of a genetic test cannot be forcibly disclosed, which does not preclude the fact that a broader range of genetic information is protected. The broad purview of the CHRA goes to show, in my respectful view, that ss. 1 to 7 also cannot be characterized in pith and substance as protecting individuals’ control over private information.” – Para. 191

I strongly believe that the narrow health only interpretation contradicts the intentions of section 9 and 10 of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA) amendments which modified section 2 and 3 of the CHRA to protect privacy and discrimination on any genetic information.

Given the potential national impact, the lack of jurisprudence, and the complex issues surrounding genetic privacy and protection from discrimination, I’m now preparing to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, focusing on the genetic characteristics argument as a matter of national public interest and to push for a broader interpretation under the CHRA. I have 60 days from November 8, 2024 to file. The goal is to protect Canadians from discrimination not just based on health-related genetic tests but also from genetic data obtained by any means and non-health related tests, like PCR tests and mRNA vaccination attestation/disclosure/status.

Wanting to ensure the viability of my case, a couple weeks ago I retained Supreme Advocacy to provide a legal opinion. I invested $5,650 into commissioning their analysis, and on December 5, they concluded:

"You have a good case for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada."

To proceed, I need to raise $25,000 by the end of December to cover the legal fees for representation. Without representation, the chances of success are slim.

"Statistically, only 10% of applications are granted leave to appeal, and for self-represented individuals, that number drops below 1%."

This case is critical not just for me but for all Canadians, as it addresses questions of privacy, discrimination, and the broader interpretation of genetic protections under the CHRA.

I’m asking for your support in any way you can:

• Donate: Visit my GiveSendGo campaign https://www.givesendgo.com/AndreFightsBack.

  André's GiveSendGo Campaign

• Spread the Word: Share this blog post and my campaign with others.

  Share

• Media/Podcast Opportunities: If you know someone interested in sharing this story, please connect me!

  AndreFightsBack on X

Thank you for standing by me through this journey. Together, we can push for justice and protect the rights of future generations.

Cheers!
André

Background:

André previously won at the Social Security Tribunal (SST), where no misconduct was found on his part. Now, his fight is focused on ensuring future generations are protected from misuse of genetic information in the workplace and beyond.

On November 8, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal has granted a partial victory in my case, sending a crucial issue back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for redetermination. This decision challenges previous rulings and recognizes that my perceived disability argument deserves a fair review.

“The appeal is allowed in part. The decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (File Number 20220355) dated October 18, 2022 is remitted to the Commission for redetermination solely with regards to whether the appellant’s complaint of discrimination on the ground of perceived disability is frivolous under section 41(1)(d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c H-6. Without costs.”

After years of setbacks, this ruling marks a positive shift, allowing me to keep pushing forward for justice. Previous decisions from the CHRC and Federal Court dismissed my claims entirely, but the Federal Court of Appeal’s acknowledgment of my perceived disability argument is a hopeful step toward a fair assessment of my case.

Although this decision isn’t a final resolution, it opens the door to justice by ensuring that my perceived disability argument, previously dismissed without full consideration, will now be re-examined by the CHRC. While this isn’t an opportunity to present new arguments, it’s an essential step, as the CHRC will need to decide if my perceived disability claim is indeed frivolous under the Canadian Human Rights Act’s guidelines. I’m hopeful this will ultimately lead to my case being heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where it can receive the consideration it deserves.

While it has been a long journey, this partial victory at the Federal Court of Appeal renews my faith in the process, as it requires the CHRC to take a second look at my case, and reminds me that justice is still within reach. I’m deeply grateful for the support I’ve received from you, family, friends, and supporters throughout this journey. This encouragement fuels my determination to keep fighting for a fair and just outcome.

You can read the full decision here:
Givogue v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 186 (CanLII)
https://canlii.ca/t/k7s5p

For more updates, please visit www.AndreFightsBack.com.

Before yesterday was a significant day in my legal journey and ongoing legal battle. I had the chance to present my case at the Federal Court of Appeal, and while it was an intense and emotional experience, I walked out feeling like a huge weight had been lifted off my shoulders.

Oh, and I should mention there were approximately 71 observers (9 in person if I recall and 62 virtually). The Registry Officer even noted it was the first time in three years they’d had children in the courtroom.

Before we begin, first, I want to thank my amazing family and friends; my wife Katie, my two daughters, my mother Gisèle, Réal, Oliver, and the lovely couple Jacques and Lise who came out to support the cause in person. I’d also like to thank everyone who tuned in virtually (including my father Marcel), and those of you supporting me directly or indirectly. You’re a huge inspiration, and I couldn’t have gotten this far without your encouragement and strength. So thank you all again!

Given the political divisiveness of our times, I want to give credit where it’s due. I’m sincerely grateful to the court staff, the judges, and the Attorney General’s solicitor for treating me with respect and dignity throughout the process and the hearing. It’s easy in situations like this, especially with opposing views in the courtroom, to take an adversarial stance and fall into an ‘us vs. them’ mindset.

But simply being heard, treated with fairness, and experiencing such professionalism and cordial civility really meant the world to me. This level of respect, even in the face of differing arguments, gives me hope in the Canadian legal system. It’s a step closer to justice and will make the process of healing and forgiveness that much easier moving forward.

Going into the hearing, despite the nerves and the intense preparation beforehand, I was still caught off guard by the sheer weight of the moment. As I began my opening, a flood of emotions hit me all at once, especially as I shared the deeply personal experience of my family's recent loss. With tears creeping up in my eyes, I explained how navigating these complex legal issues required a tremendous amount of time and effort, which had taken a toll on me and my family.

Referencing the heartfelt email from the Attorney General, who offered her sincere condolences and the option to reschedule, brought a sense of human connection to the courtroom that I didn’t expect. I had thanked her for treating me with dignity, but ultimately, I knew there was too much on the line to postpone as it would have weighed heavily on my mind.

Still, in that moment, standing before the court, sleep-deprived, mentally exhausted, and emotionally raw, I felt the full impact of everything I’d been carrying. As I spoke, I couldn’t help but reflect on the discrimination I’d experienced and wondered why I hadn’t been treated with the same level of respect and dignity back then. I tried to keep my composure, but the pressure was rapidly building beyond my control. I felt my body trembling, slipping into a state of shock, my legs weak beneath me, and the weight of both the legal stakes and personal pain hit me like a flood of emotions I couldn’t hold back.

Clearly in crisis and feeling like an emotional wreck, I asked the court if I could sit, and they graciously allowed it, making me feel dignified as they accommodated me when they could easily have said no. Just then, it became even harder for me to keep it together. These small gestures of compassion and care were breaking through the internal narrative I had been caught up in; one where it feels like there is constant conflict, fighting against a cold, corrupt machine that doesn't care about anyone, let alone my own situation.

For so long, it seems as though many of those involved within the establishment are distant and indifferent monsters; faceless entities with no regard for the real human impact of their actions. But now, with these unexpected signs of kindness and empathy, those harsh perceptions were gradually fading, revealing the individuals before me as human beings too, showing genuine compassion.

I was already struggling to speak through the emotions, and as my teary eyes intensified, my vision became increasingly blurry, making it even more difficult to read my opening statement. The judge, showing compassion and empathy once again, invited me to take my time, reassuring me that it was okay to pause and gather myself while the court staff discreetly handed me a box of tissues.

These acts of kindness started to shift my perspective, reminding me that the individuals in front of me were not the ones who had caused me harm, but rather neutral, objective parties willing to truly listen to me. Despite all the emotions, in that moment I felt respected and treated with dignity, which meant more than I can express.

In this appeal, I argued that the Federal Court made significant legal errors in dismissing my complaint. First, they applied the wrong standard of review. The Federal Court used the "reasonableness" standard when it should have been "correctness," standard, especially on key questions of law like the interpretation of "genetic characteristics" under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Meaning the Federal Court should have focused on whether the decision was actually right, not just whether the process used to make it was reasonable.

This matters because the definition of 'genetic characteristics' goes beyond health-related genetic tests. I argued that it should extend protections to include personal health information, like vaccination status, particularly because mRNA vaccines operate at the genetic level by introducing genetic material into the body, which could be considered a form of genetic alteration. By interpreting 'genetic characteristics' too narrowly, the court missed the broader intent of the law to protect personal health information, leaving many of us vulnerable to discrimination.

Second, some really important evidence was overlooked, like my affidavit and the appendices, which the Canadian Human Rights Commission left out. These documents backed up my claims of discrimination and showed that I was following my employer’s policies in good faith. Without this evidence, the full story wasn’t properly considered, and a big part of the discrimination I went through was missed. It was a serious mistake that needed to be addressed.

After my Federal Court hearing last year, the Social Security Tribunal gave their decision and confirmed that I hadn’t done anything wrong; there was no misconduct on my part. This was a huge deal because it proved that I followed the policy and wasn’t let go for any valid reason related to my job performance. Bringing up the SST decision in this appeal was crucial because it showed that an independent tribunal had already agreed that I acted fairly. It supported my argument that I was treated unfairly, and that the pressure I faced to disclose personal health information was both unjust and discriminatory.

Third, the court completely misunderstood my argument about partial or perceived disability by echoing the flawed reasoning of the Human Rights Officer and the Commission. At no point did I say I had a disability that kept me from taking the vaccine. What I actually argued was that my employer’s policy treated anyone unwilling to disclose their vaccination status as a potential health hazard, which discriminated against me based on perceived disability. But instead, the court assumed I was unvaccinated and dismissed this argument because they were stuck on a narrow definition of disability.

Finally, the harassment I went through, where my employer demanded my personal health information repeatedly under the threat of losing my job, was a key part of my complaint.

One moment that stood out was when the judges asked specific questions of the Attorney General, zeroing in on points I had raised. She seemed completely caught off guard, like it wasn’t something she had expected or prepared for. It gave me hope that they were genuinely considering my arguments, especially regarding perceived discrimination. The fact that my voice was being heard, that my points were resonating, was reassuring.

I was also happy to finally put key evidence on record, including news articles and reports that showed the inherent bias against unvaccinated people during that time. The policy treated anyone unwilling to disclose their vaccination status as unvaccinated, leading to discriminatory treatment. Throughout the pandemic, societal bias toward unvaccinated individuals created unfair assumptions, and everyone was affected, including people like me who had been working from home for years, but suddenly found themselves subjected to coercive measures. It felt like a small victory just having that officially put on record, no matter the outcome.

Despite the technical glitches and the limited time, I believe I conveyed the essence of my argument. Analogies like the comparison of 2 x $5 bills to a $10 bill equals the same purchasing power helped me illustrate the distinction between genetic test results and vaccine disclosure, that the outcome of asking for vaccination status is the same as revealing a genetic test results, and I think the judges understood the broader points I was making.

Overall I’m grateful the judges allowed me to finish my thoughts, even giving me a little extra time, which felt like a relief. It was important to get everything out there, especially since this case isn’t just about me, it’s about how human rights are protected in our modern world. If we let this narrow interpretation stand, many more could face similar discrimination based on their private health information, whether it’s related to vaccination status or genetic testing.

As the hearing drew to a close, I felt a mix of exhaustion and relief. Looking back, there’s always room for improvement, but I know I gave it everything I had under these circumstances. Regardless of the outcome, I’m proud that I stood up for myself, my family, and others who’ve been treated unjustly. This fight isn’t over, but for the first time in a long while, I feel hope; hope that justice will prevail and that this journey, though difficult, will be worth it in the end.

While the result is still uncertain, I’m confident that I left everything on the table. This experience has taught me resilience, patience, and the importance of standing up for what’s right, even when the odds seem stacked against you.

I’m committed to seeing this through, and I’m deeply thankful for all the support I’ve received. I’ll continue to share updates and insights on www.AndreFightsBack.com as this journey unfolds.

I wanted to remind you about my Federal Court of Appeal hearing tomorrow morning, Thursday October 10 at 9:30 AM. This case, Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada, is significant as it addresses how genetic characteristics and perceived disability discrimination are treated under COVID-19 workplace policies. The outcome could set a national precedent, making it vital for me to have your support.

I would be honored if you could pack the virtual courtroom and show your support, whether in person or online. If you plan to attend in person, please give yourself plenty of time for construction, parking, and security checks—it's quite like going through an airport checkpoint. There are only 25 spots available in the courtroom on a first-come, first-served basis, and the rest will need to listen in via Zoom to show national public interest and unity.

To join virtually, please use this link: Join the Hearing.

See Me In Court - Click Here to Watch

Meanwhile, on my end, I wanted to share a quick update before the hearing. Last night was supposed to be a night of preparation, tying up loose ends and getting everything in order. I had been heavily working on my opening statement for the past few days, ensuring I used the right words and precise language to convey my arguments clearly when the unexpected struck.

What began as a routine session of gathering notes and updating files turned into a frustrating nightmare. Instead of smoothly preparing, I was faced with a significant computer issue that felt like a malicious glitch, a virus or a trojan, redirecting my focus and pulling me away from what I needed to do.

I spent hours troubleshooting, each moment feeling like it was pulling me further from my preparations. Frustration intensified, and I could feel the stress and anxiety building, right when I needed to be at my best.

It felt like one obstacle after another, like the universe was throwing punches, daring me to keep going. Every minute I spent battling this issue was another minute lost. Valuable time, slipping away, testing my determination and perseverance. About ten hours slipped away, and with it, precious time I had set aside for preparation. Sleep? That was gone too. But after all that chaos, I finally managed to “contain” the problem enough to push forward and get some work done, even if my focus is all over the place.

I wish it didn’t feel like an uphill battle every step of the way, especially with tomorrow looming so close. But I’m still here, still fighting through the distractions, one step at a time. It looks like it might be another short sleepless night, but I’m determined to push through. Thank you for your support, and here’s to a brighter day ahead. Have a good night!

Excited to see you all tomorrow! Cheers!
André

I wanted to take a moment to share the message that Katie sent to our families and close friends a couple days ago. She wrote this on October 2nd, while we were still at the hospital, using her phone. I didn’t have access to my computer right away, and between bringing everything home from the hospital, our luggage, clothes, and all the documents for my case preparations, it’s been a lot to manage. Yesterday, our in-laws were still here helping, and they headed home today.

I’ve been trying to catch up on emails, weekly chores, and get back into the groove of things, but there's just so much happening all at once. I also want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the heartfelt messages we’ve received, they mean the world to us.

Katie’s message sums up what we’ve been through over the past few days as we welcomed our baby boy, Dominic, into the world, even though the circumstances have been heartbreaking. We deeply appreciate your continued love and support as we navigate this incredibly difficult time.

Here is the update from Katie:

-----

“Hey all,

Here is the latest update:

I delivered baby boy, Dominic Givogue early this morning (Oct 2nd) at 12:17am. Dominic was delivered inside the amniotic sac, which was still intact -- which helped to preserve Dominic while we waited  for morning. The placenta was also delivered at the same time as Dominic, so no extra measures were necessary. One thing to note, when Baby Dominic was delivered still inside the sac with the fluid still intact, the doctors and nurses kept saying how very rare this is! Most often, the sac breaks in utero, then Baby is delivered and often time the placenta needs to be extracted medically - all this to say, I am very blessed and grateful everything happened the way it did. This is the absolute best case scenario.

Details :

Weight : 81 grams
Length : 17.5 cms

We have sent Dominic for an autopsy to help and see if they are able to confirm why this has happened.

There will not be a funeral service. We had a private blessing for Baby Dominic this morning.

Lastly, we have received confirmation yesterday when we arrived at the hospital that because Dominic was born at 20+2 gestation, this is classified as a stillbirth and no longer a miscarriage.

Katie & André Givogue”

I wanted to take a moment to share some heartbreaking news. Katie and I went in for our anatomy ultrasound, excited to find out if we were going to have another girl or a little boy, but instead, we received the devastating news that there was no heartbeat and that we’ve lost our baby. As we process this loss, we’re now facing some tough days ahead, as we’ll be going to the hospital today for induced labor and will be there for the next few days. This is incredibly difficult for us, especially as it’s now our second pregnancy loss in a row. Your thoughts and support mean so much to us during this time.

On top of this, I’m preparing for my Federal Court of Appeal hearing, scheduled for next week, October 10th. As many of you know, I’m self-represented, so I’m working hard to get everything ready while balancing everything else that’s happening.

If I seem a bit slow to respond or distracted, please understand that there’s a lot on my plate right now. Thank you for your patience, understanding and support.

Thank you,
André

Since my last update, a lot has happened that I’m eager to share with you. Your ongoing support has been incredible, and together, we’re making significant progress in our fight for justice!

1. Latest on My Federal Court of Appeal Case

Save The Date! Federal Court of Appeal Hearing

I’m thrilled to confirm that the hearing date for my Federal Court of Appeal case, Givogue v. Attorney General of Canada (A-237-23), is scheduled for October 10, 2024, at 9:30 AM. This case could set a national precedent on how genetic characteristics and perceived disability are treated in Canadian workplaces under COVID-19 policies. The outcome of this case isn’t just about me; it’s about all of us and our rights in the face of discrimination and overreach. For more information, you can check out the press release.

I’d love for you to join me as an observer virtually via Zoom: Join the Hearing or in person at the Federal Court of Appeal at 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H9. Seating in person is limited to 25.

Just being there virtually means the world to me, and I’d love to see some familiar faces as we bring these crucial issues to the court’s attention.

How to register to be an observer on my case

Please register by clicking on the following link:

https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

Fill out the form and click “Register”

How to find my case on the Federal Court of Appeal Website

Go to:

https://www.fca-caf.ca/en/pages/hearings/upcoming-hearings/71

Under city select “Ottawa”

Under Hearings Calendar chose “October 10, 2024”

Click on “A-237-23 – Ottawa (09:30:00)”

This will open an “Information on A-237-23” pop-up window, click “Register”

Please register by clicking on the following link:

https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

It will bring you the Zoom Registration page

https://cas-satj.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_eBAU03gpQ1qjeedW8Sjzag#/registration

Fill out the form and click “Register”

2. How You Can Help

As always, your support means everything to me. Whether it’s showing up to the hearing, spreading the word, or just sending good vibes, I’m incredibly grateful.

Once you’ve registered to attend the hearing, consider sharing your support on social media. Here are a few options you can use to spread the word:

• I will be attending André's appeal court hearing virtually on genetic characteristics and perceived disability. #A23723 @andrefightsback https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

• Standing in solidarity with @andrefightsback as he fights for justice in the Federal Court of Appeal. #A23723 https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

• Supporting André in his fight against genetic and perceived disability discrimination. Join me virtually on October 10th! #A23723 @andrefightsback https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

• Proud to back @andrefightsback in his pivotal court case on genetic characteristics and rights. #A23723 https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

• Together, we can make a difference! I'll be at the virtual hearing for André's appeal on October 10th. #A23723 @andrefightsback https://cas-satj.zoom.us/j/68634858072?pwd=4DZA4mdiIT69unIz5qi2lEwrMPYgKi.1

3. My Story Featured in The Canadian Independent

I’m excited to share that The Canadian Independent recently featured my story regarding my successful appeal at the Social Security Tribunal. They did an incredible job of capturing the essence of the fight we’re all in together.

You can check out the full story here:

• Read on Substack

The Canadian Independent

Federal employee placed on unpaid leave for not disclosing COVID-19 vaccine status wins appeal for EI benefits

The Social Security Tribunal of Canada (General Division) has granted an appeal by Andre Givogue, a federal government employee who works remotely for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. He sought Employment Insurance (EI) benefits after being suspended from his job without pay for alleged non-compliance with his employer’s vaccination policy. The decision, is…

Read more

2 years ago · 50 likes · 9 comments · The Canadian Independent

• Facebook Post

  • https://www.facebook.com/jonnisbett2987/posts/pfbid022UwTfjsV25myKLnh48swnEZRiEuZBevzvESrtLYoyTayRGJBjcAGsjXQgqyr4xiEl

• X (formerly Twitter) Post

  • https://x.com/canindependent/status/1836569024039117279

This article covers my journey, the challenges I've faced, and how I’ve taken a stand for what’s right. It’s a great read for anyone who wants to understand more about why this fight is so important.

4. Here’s Another Important Court Case to Follow

Read full story here:
“A man criminally charged with “common nuisance” for attending two separate lockdown protests: found not guilty in one city and guilty in another; case headed to Superior Court for appeal”

The Canadian Independent

A man criminally charged with “common nuisance” for attending two separate lockdown protests: found not guilty in one city and guilty in another; case headed to Superior Court for appeal

A legal battle continues to unfold surrounding Cullen McDonald, 34, a man from Ontario who participated in protests against COVID-19 lockdown measures. McDonald was criminally charged with “common nuisance” for protesting in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines, Ontario, in 2021. He received two dramatically different verdicts: he was found not guilty in on…

Read more

2 years ago · 36 likes · 6 comments · The Canadian Independent

5. Stay Tuned

Website: AndreFightsBack.com

www.AndreFightsBack.com is live, and it’s going to be the hub for all updates on my legal journey. From here on out, I’ll be sending updates like this through the site, so you might notice things looking a bit different. It’ll be much easier for me to share updates, and you’ll also be able to subscribe directly to get them delivered straight to your inbox (hopefully without hitting the dreaded junk mail! 🤞).

This site will also make it easier for others to follow along with the case and share the news, so feel free to pass it on to anyone who might be interested!

Follow @AndreFightsBack on X

Join the conversation and stay informed by following @AndreFightsBack on X (formerly Twitter) at https://x.com/AndreFightsBack. Engage with the posts, retweet, and help spread the word to increase awareness.

Call to Action

If you know someone interested in following the case or supporting this fight for justice, send them to AndreFightsBack.com. On X, tag and share @AndreFightsBack and use the hashtag #AndreFightsBack. I’ll be posting updates there, so it’s the best way to stay informed.

Thank you for standing with me and being in my corner—it really does make a difference.

Cheers,
André