https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58063647

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58063647

Clown world.
They fine people this much because they didn't get a highly dangerous vaccine for the common cold.

No, I think they were fined for falsifying docuмents, that is, fraud.
I am surprised how little regard many Roman Rite trads give to fraud. False tax returns, lies at border crossings, false statements on building permits (often not applying for permits when required). boasting about false reports on the job, and so on.

The story is about Canadian citizens entering Canada. They could have entered as vaccinated or not vaccinated, with a somewhat different process. These people chose to represent themselves falsely, and they got caught and fined for it.
Do you really want to defend their lies?

FALSEHOODS BY ONE IN AUTHORITY
Question: What answer can be given by a man in public office, such as a senator, a governor, etc., to a question centering about some confidential matter, when any reply except a definite falsehood will probably result in at least a partial revelation of the secret? 

Answer: The problem presented by our questioner in respect to a person in public life can occur also in the case of many others in posts of authority, such as the lawyer, the doctor, an ecclesiastical or religious superior, etc. Such a person often possesses information which he may not divulge. What answer should he give when he is questioned about the matter? Some theologians would answer that the only lawful ways in which the secret can be protected are silence and the use of a mental restriction. By a mental restriction is meant a statement that can be understood in the correct sense, though in the present circuмstances it will probably be understood in some other sense. But it must be admitted that there are occasions when even the most clever mental restriction will be inadequate to prevent the revelation of the secret. The view of another school of theologians offers assistance in a case of this kind. They hold that when a person possesses a very important secret and some one is trying unjustly to discover it, this person is permitted to tell even a direct falsehood as a means of protection. In such an event, they say, the falsehood is not to be classified as a lie, since the essential malice of a lie is the harm it does to society, and in the particular circuмstances described, society is aided rather than harmed by a falsehood. I believe that the opinion of these latter theologians is suffidently probable to be used in practice. Of course, only a very prudent and restricted use of this opinion is permissible. (Cf. Dorszynski, J.A., Catholic Teaching about the Morality of Falsehood, Catholic University of America Press, 1949.)