Federal court refuses to end quarantine
hotel rules, saying health order remains
until full hearing in June
\
© Provided by National Post A man looks at his phone at a quarantine hotel near Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga, Ontario, on Feb. 24, 2021.
The Federal Court refused to order an immediate end to the federal government’s quarantine hotel rules, but agreed it is an issue needing close judicial scrutiny because of restrictions it places on travellers.
“A public health emergency, like the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, is in one sense simply another emergency. However, it must also be recognized that it is a type of situation that can inspire irrational fears and passions, which may in turn provoke a government to adopt excessive measures that trench unduly on the rights and freedoms of individuals,” the court said in its ruling.
“It is necessary, therefore, to subject government rationale for any emergency measures to a degree of scrutiny that is proportional to the risk that Charter rights may have been impaired by actions based on irrational fears rather than the careful weighing of competing interests based on the evidence.”
That examination will come in June, when a full trial is scheduled by the Federal Court to hear a number of challenges to the government’s health restrictions in response to COVID.
For now, the apparent necessity of unusual actions in the face of an unusual threat means the order will remain in force.
“Against this, however, lies the very real risk that some of these travellers will unknowingly bring into Canada a potentially deadly virus, or one of the newly-emerging, more transmissible and perhaps more dangerous variants of concern,” Judge William Pentney concluded.
“Any harm to the Applicants’ rights and freedoms from a temporary stay at a hotel is not a sufficient basis to suspend a significant public health measure that is based on the advice of scientific experts, and seeks to prevent or slow the spread of COVID-19 and its variants into Canada.
“This evidence amply demonstrates that the public interest lies in not suspending the challenged measures.”
A joint motion by nine people asked the court to suspend the emergency measure requiring travellers arriving in Canada by air to pre-book and pay for a three-day stay in a government-approved hotel and remain in quarantine there until a second COVID test confirms they are not carrying the novel coronavirus.
The Federal Court refused to order an immediate end to the federal government’s quarantine hotel rules, but agreed it is an issue needing close judicial scrutiny because of restrictions it places on travellers.
“A public health emergency, like the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, is in one sense simply another emergency. However, it must also be recognized that it is a type of situation that can inspire irrational fears and passions, which may in turn provoke a government to adopt excessive measures that trench unduly on the rights and freedoms of individuals,” the court said in its ruling.
“It is necessary, therefore, to subject government rationale for any emergency measures to a degree of scrutiny that is proportional to the risk that Charter rights may have been impaired by actions based on irrational fears rather than the careful weighing of competing interests based on the evidence.”
That examination will come in June, when a full trial is scheduled by the Federal Court to hear a number of challenges to the government’s health restrictions in response to COVID.
For now, the apparent necessity of unusual actions in the face of an unusual threat means the order will remain in force.
“Against this, however, lies the very real risk that some of these travellers will unknowingly bring into Canada a potentially deadly virus, or one of the newly-emerging, more transmissible and perhaps more dangerous variants of concern,” Judge William Pentney concluded.
“Any harm to the Applicants’ rights and freedoms from a temporary stay at a hotel is not a sufficient basis to suspend a significant public health measure that is based on the advice of scientific experts, and seeks to prevent or slow the spread of COVID-19 and its variants into Canada.
“This evidence amply demonstrates that the public interest lies in not suspending the challenged measures.”
A joint motion by nine people asked the court to suspend the emergency measure requiring travellers arriving in Canada by air to pre-book and pay for a three-day stay in a government-approved hotel and remain in quarantine there until a second COVID test confirms they are not carrying the novel coronavirus.
India underestimated the virus. Why that's a cautionary tale for Canada
They argued the mandatory quarantine rules violate their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they are law-abiding people who can safely quarantine at home. Most of the nine left Canada before the rules were put in place.
In response, the government argued that having to change travel plans and incur added travel costs because of the rules is not enough to upend a public health measures responding to the emergence of new COVID-19 variants of concern. Suspending the rules would have a significant negative impact on public health “at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is already posing significant challenges in Canada, with tragic consequences for thousands of people.”
Many of the plaintiffs divide their time between a home in Canada and another in Mexico or Florida and object to the mandatory hotel stay for various reasons, from financial hardship, mental health, safety fears — and also an anti-testing objection.
The lead plaintiff in the appeal is Barbara Spencer, who moved from Ontario to Mexico after retiring in 2011. She wants to return to Canada to see her family, especially her first great-grandchild, and also to see her family doctor, court heard. She said she fears for her safety and does not feel comfortable at a mandated federal facility.
Reid Nehring, an Alberta resident, told court he doesn’t want the government to “insert a foreign object into my body under the guise of testing,” in his objection to the requirement of having a COVID test before arriving in Canada.
SOUNDS LIKE A UFO PHOBIA
Sabry Mohammad Belhouchet went to Algeria after the death of his father to tend to his father’s estate. He told court the fees of the mandatory hotel will create financial hardship on top of his travel and not working for three months while out of Ontario.
Michel Lafontaine, of Quebec, said he and his wife travelled south in response to the Canadian government’s dire warnings that the health care system might be overwhelmed during the pandemic. He complained the rules ignore that both he and his wife have been fully vaccinated while staying in Florida.
The nine plaintiffs are represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a Calgary-based conservative legal group.
Sabry Mohammad Belhouchet went to Algeria after the death of his father to tend to his father’s estate. He told court the fees of the mandatory hotel will create financial hardship on top of his travel and not working for three months while out of Ontario.
Michel Lafontaine, of Quebec, said he and his wife travelled south in response to the Canadian government’s dire warnings that the health care system might be overwhelmed during the pandemic. He complained the rules ignore that both he and his wife have been fully vaccinated while staying in Florida.
The nine plaintiffs are represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a Calgary-based conservative legal group.
THE Y SOUND LIKE A FRONT FOR THE SOVERIGN INDIVIDUAL CULT
The organization reacted with disappointment their injunction wasn’t granted but were pleased the court recognized the risk of health restrictions breaching fundamental freedoms.
“The forced isolation of returning Canadian air travellers is arbitrary, unnecessary, and totalitarian. These quarantine hotels and restrictive measures are more consistent with a dictatorship than a free society,” Jay Cameron, the organization’s litigation director, said in a written statement.
• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys
The organization reacted with disappointment their injunction wasn’t granted but were pleased the court recognized the risk of health restrictions breaching fundamental freedoms.
“The forced isolation of returning Canadian air travellers is arbitrary, unnecessary, and totalitarian. These quarantine hotels and restrictive measures are more consistent with a dictatorship than a free society,” Jay Cameron, the organization’s litigation director, said in a written statement.
• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys
No comments:
Post a Comment