Calgary Fatality Inquiry Examines Mixed COVID Vaccines as Lawyer Raises Safety Concerns
Calgary Inquiry Probes Mixed COVID Vaccines in Man's Death

Calgary Fatality Inquiry Examines Mixed COVID Vaccines as Lawyer Raises Safety Concerns

A Calgary fatality inquiry has become the focal point for examining whether mixed COVID-19 vaccinations contributed to the death of a local man, with legal representatives raising significant questions about manufacturer recommendations and vaccine administration protocols.

Legal Challenge Over Vaccine Documentation

During Tuesday's proceedings at the Calgary Courts Centre, family lawyer Eva Chipiuk presented a compelling argument that COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers never recommended mixing different brands of their products. Chipiuk attempted to introduce product monograms from November 2021 that explicitly stated manufacturers did not endorse mixing and matching vaccines.

However, Justice Paul Mason, presiding over the inquiry into the death of Joseph Chad Haws, agreed with inquiry counsel Kyle Fowler that the documentation should not be entered as evidence at this stage. The judge noted that since the documents post-dated Haws' vaccinations, it would be premature to include them in the official record.

The Case of Joseph Chad Haws

The inquiry centers on the tragic death of 47-year-old Joseph Chad Haws, who received an AstraZeneca vaccine in April 2021 followed by a Pfizer dose two months later. According to medical testimony, Haws died of natural causes related to complications from capillary leak syndrome after being hospitalized on February 18, 2022, and passing away the following day.

One of the primary questions the inquiry must address is whether Haws' vaccinations contributed to his death. His family doctor, Soheil Yala, testified that he did not administer either vaccine to his patient, highlighting the complex nature of vaccine distribution during the pandemic.

Manufacturer Recommendations Under Scrutiny

Lawyer Eva Chipiuk emphasized the importance of manufacturer guidelines, stating: "I think the content is still very valid to this court and needs to be on the record that vaccine manufacturers themselves in the product monograph — which is an instructional manual to health-care professionals and meant to inform patients — at no time did vaccine manufacturers say mixing and matching was an appropriate use of their product."

Chipiuk explained that the November 2021 product monogram was the earliest version she could locate online, but argued it would be illogical to assume earlier versions recommended vaccine mixing. She maintained that this information remains crucial for understanding proper vaccine administration protocols.

Procedural Decisions and Future Testimony

Justice Mason indicated that evidence regarding vaccine manufacturer recommendations might be more appropriately presented through vaccinologists scheduled to testify later in the week. "I'm not ruling out that at some point this could become part of the record in this inquiry," the Calgary Court of Justice judge stated, adding "I'll leave it for now. I'm not saying no, just maybe later."

Inquiry counsel Kyle Fowler argued that it was unfair to ask Dr. Yala to comment on documents from November 2021 when Haws received his vaccinations earlier that year. This procedural decision highlights the careful balance courts must maintain between exploring relevant evidence and maintaining fair hearing procedures.

Broader Implications for Public Health

This Calgary inquiry represents a significant examination of COVID-19 vaccine administration practices during the pandemic's peak. The case raises important questions about:

  • Manufacturer guidelines versus public health recommendations
  • Documentation and transparency in vaccine distribution
  • Legal accountability in public health emergencies
  • Patient safety protocols during mass vaccination campaigns

As the inquiry continues, it promises to shed light on the complex intersection of public health policy, medical practice, and legal accountability during one of Canada's most challenging public health crises. The findings could have implications for future vaccine rollout strategies and legal standards for medical interventions during emergencies.