Health orders do not violate constitutional rights, says judge

He argued that the province’s health regulations violate freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of expression and the peaceful confederation and freedom of association, which are guaranteed by the Canadian Rights and Freedom Charter.

In his conclusion, Glenn Joel, Chief Justice of the Queen’s Court of Manitoba, noted that although the rules imposed certain restrictions on the rights and freedoms of applicants, it did not infringe on their guaranteed rights by charter and that they were fair. In the context of infection.

[Ces ordonnances sanitaires] COVID-19 does not restrict rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable in response to a public health emergency, The judge writes.

Mr Joel points out that this is the first case in Canada with a challenge to health controls Complete and relevant evidence that challenges and attacks the science on which the government in question depends [dans ce cas, le Manitoba].

Therefore, Joel J. The key question to be answered is whether there is sufficient credible evidence to justify the restrictions imposed by Manitoba.

The defense and plaintiffs called several witnesses. One of the key witnesses was Brent Russin, Manitoba’s chief health officer. According to the judge, his testimony was credible even after a serious cross-examination of the plaintiffs.

Glenn Joel mentions that Dr. Roose needs to explain something Contradictions or contradictions in its approach or method based on incomplete, developing or sometimes imperfect science, And he was able to clarify and explain his results.

Similarly, the judge concluded that the testimony and cross-examination of other witnesses in the province, including the Common Care Chief Nurse, strengthened the security position.

After their testimonies, Nothing definite was reported [tel que le suggèrent les demandeurs] COVID-19 deaths are not true, positive COVID-19 PCR test results are not true, Manitoba’s predictions are false and / or [les décideurs de la province n’ont pas pris en compte les conséquences collatérales de leurs décisions].

Joel J. Jay Bhattacharya, a medical professor at Stanford University who testified as a key plaintiff, concluded that the scientific reason behind the Manitoba rulings was not in question.

The latter argues for the controversial statement of Great Barrington, which proposes to impose restrictions on individual liberties only for those at high risk of dying from COVID-19.

In the second conclusion, the judge ruled that the authority of the provincial chief medical officer was lawful.

Call is possible

The panel behind the court challenge was represented by the Legal Center for Constitutional Freedom in Calgary, which has launched a number of similar lawsuits challenging the validity of certain public health measures in Canada.

In a statement, Alison Bezovic, a member of the panel of lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said the decision would be reviewed and the appeal considered.

We are disappointed by these results and the unchanging commitment of the reservation made to public health authorities.

The case began in the midst of a second wave of epidemics as hundreds of mannoids were hospitalized and many new deaths were recorded in the province each day.

With information by Sarah Bets