A shocking revelation about how laws were broken under the Criminal Code of Canada by employers who mandated poisonous substances under safety protocols with no informed consent -- and who might be accountable.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
In the spring of 2023, when I was the spokesperson for the National Citizens Inquiry here in Canada, an unassuming postal worker took the stand at the Saskatchewan hearings.
Unlike many of our expert witnesses, he was not famous or world-renowned in his field.
He didn’t have millions of followers.
He didn’t even have a Substack.
But Ryan Orydzuk had important information about the mandating of the so-called “vaccines” that no one else seemed to have.
In his testimony, Mr. Orydzuk, a Health and Safety Officer with a 50-page CV outlining his thousands of hours of health and safety training courses, explained a surprising but overlooked aspect of the Covid misconduct.
The Labour Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act may be the best opportunity to hold people accountable for illegal “vaccine” mandates.
Because when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the mandates for federal employees, it was as a safety measure.
While many people have rightly gone after the government and their constitutional rights violations, the pharmaceutical companies and those accused of misleading us with the "safe and effective" narrative, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their lack of ethics in promoting a poison injection and punishing those who stood against it, few people seem to understand the labour laws that make employers who mandated the shots liable.
And this is where Mr. Orydzuk comes in.
His hands-on experience with health and safety issues, protocols, and labour laws, gives him a unique perspective on what happened with the mandates and who might be legally responsible.
In a recent interview, he explained that when an employer mandates a health and safety protocol, the responsibility for informed consent falls to them.
Informed consent is something I (and many others) wrote about over 3 years ago, but I had no understanding of the transfer of responsibility that happened when employers implemented those mandates.
No longer did the responsibility fall on the person giving the injection, but rather the person ordering it as part of what falls under personal protection equipment in the work environment.
This legal accountability shifted under what is know as the Westray Law, which became part of the Criminal Code of Canada after the Westray mining disaster in 1992 where 26 workers in Nova Scotia died after an explosion.
Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.
217.1 Criminal Code of Canada
Once informed consent became the responsibility of the employers who mandated the shots, their duty included these “reasonable steps” to ensure that this new addition to a workplace requirement was safe.
In addition, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, every employee has the right to know, the right to participate, and the right to refuse work.
Mr. Orydzuk explains how the right to know includes informed consent.
Given no information upon which to make an informed decision, Ryan Orydzuk began doing his own research.
Working as a Health and Safety Officer for Canada Post, he went to his employer with 90 questions, along with dozens of scientific studies and other references citing concerns about the then experimental injection.
Defying their legal obligations, all of the questions answered by Canada Post deferred responsibility to the Public Health Agency of Canada.
No information was provided to allay his safety concerns, despite the shocking evidence he shared.
And this is when we pick up where Mr. Orydzuk’s testimony left off.
As part of his due diligence to determine the risk assessment of the Covid shots, Mr. Orydzuk began researching the ingredients lists of the Pfizer and Moderna shots.
Among these, he found SM-102, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 — all registered poisons.
“The manufacturer themselves showed on both their SDS [safety data sheet] and the product information brochure, that the ingredients were for research purposes only, and never to be used in humans or animals….Health Canada knows and still approved the injection."
Ryan Orydzuk
Particularly worthy of note on the data sheets of SM-102 and ALC-0315 is the signal word -- "danger."
These are just some of the warnings on these sheets…
If swallowed: Call a poison center/doctor if you feel unwell.
Wear protective equipment. Keep unprotected persons away.
Do not allow to enter sewers/ surface or ground water.
Avoid breathing dust/fume/ gas/mist/vapours/spray.
Avoid prolonged or repeated exposure.
Keep away from foodstuffs, beverages and feed.
Immediately remove all soiled and contaminated clothing.
Wash hands before breaks and at the end of work.
Avoid contact with the eyes and skin.
The next step was Mr. Orydzuk’s right to refuse.
Any worker can submit a work refusal, during which, and afterwards, no reprisals can be made.
In other words, under normal circumstances, when the law isn’t being broken, bent, or ignored, an employee would suffer no consequences for submitting a work refusal.
But as we all know, nothing was normal during the Covid years.
Canada Post began the formality of a refusal process, but an investigation never took place.
They didn't examine any of the information he submitted in his presence, and in fact didn't meet with him at all.
Not only did Ryan Orydzuk's employers not uphold his right to know, but they dismissed his concerns, made a mockery of his right to refuse, and suspended him indefinitely.
Employees across the country were disallowed their legal right to refuse work.
They were simply labelled non-compliant for declining a medical treatment, and were either laid off or fired.
But according to Mr. Orydzuk, it’s not too late to demand accountability.
In fact, until "vaccine" mandates are eliminated, we must.
He suggests printing out these safety data sheets, taking them to your employer or safety board, and insisting on an investigation.
As he pointed out, if he had not been one in tens of thousands of Canada Post employees who stood up against this illegal and unjust activity, these mandates would never have worked.
Employers would have had to have followed the usual course of action required by law, and employees would have understood the nature of this "safety" protocol and chosen whether or not to participate.
It is up to each of us to take responsibility for our part in allowing this injustice, and begin to support the moral arc of the universe.
In addition, those who created and implemented these violations of bodily autonomy and human rights must be held to account.
To date, there has been no justice for thousands of people who were coerced into submitting to a dangerous medical procedure with no right to know or right to refuse.
There has been no accountability for those who have been injured and died as a result.
But since his original NCI testimony, Ryan Orydzuk made a discovery that adds new significance to his employer’s responsibility for informed consent.
And this is where it gets technical, but here goes...
Since 1981, Canada Post has operated as an agent of the Crown, as is demonstrated in section 23 of the Canada Post Act.
According to the government's own documentation and websites, the government and the King are legally liable for the actions of Crown Agents.
This fact apparently separates Canada Post from other regular crown corporations.
But there's another difference.
Since the Auditor General report in 2017, and the subsequent relocation of Canada Post from schedule 3 part 2 of the Financial Administration Act, to schedule 3 part 1,
both financial and operational plans of the Crown corporation need the full approval of the Finance Minister and Treasury Board.
According to Mr. Orydzuk, this puts the responsibility of informed consent for nearly 70000 employees on those who approved the health and safety mandates in the first place -- the government and the Crown.
Ryan Orydzuk has compiled a substantial body of evidence that must be examined.
It is my hope that in sharing this information, others with far more understanding of legal issues will do whatever possible to test its standing.
For the rest of us, if we are to regain our agency and reclaim our rights, we must insist on these rights and ensure that we do not comply with illegal and immoral policies again.
You can watch Mr. Orydzuk’s full NCI testimony HERE.
And you can watch the whole of my recent conversation with him here…
🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏
Please consider making any sized donation to support the free content at Gather Your Wits .
You can donate through the button in the upper right hand corner of this site.
Sharing, likes, and comments are also greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your partnership in outing the truth and being the change. 🙏
There were a few good unions during COVID vaccine hysteria who supported choice. Many psycho phonies online though
By the way people stopped my comment earlier. You should have saw the message they manipulate. So I have done it again. In honor of those who try to hide their criminality this one is for you it's not this website doing it it's the dirty fingers using the backdoor key. Wait is that a specific AI psychopath here?
So everyone what do you think of people connected to certain unions who attach to organize crime that stalk members who outed them for over 20 years. Yes you got it right. Over 20 years of stalking harassment and intimidation. A union w…
Thank you, Michelle! What about judges who have a duty to uphold the law in their work place, yet ruled against informed parents who did not consent to experimental m-RNA gene therapy being injected into their child/children? Can they be held accountable? TY!