There are still numerous ongoing legal battles over various types of government restrictions and mandates, indicating that the pandemic’s end has not resolved the push-back against the restrictions. in Canada. Throughout this year and through to 2024, judges will continue to rule on these cases, which relate to the limits of Canadians’ freedoms and government power.
One of the most noteworthy cases is the Freedom Convoy organizers’ trial, involving Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. Moreover, the Ingram decision in Alberta has also generated significant interest, as it has ruled the province’s public health orders to be invalid – a unique technicality. Meanwhile, the Ontario Superior Court has upheld the validity of public health orders following their ruling on November 27.
Several of these cases also include family disputes over the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for children, pastors who refuse to stop public worship, business owners who refuse to check vaccination status, and employees who were fired over workplace vaccination mandates. Health-care workers who were also critical of COVID measures have been subjected to disciplinary hearings with their professional regulators.
Looking at prominent cases in more detail, the ongoing trial of Lich and Barber is especially contentious due to the charges of mischief, counselling others to commit mischief, and intimidation they face. Furthermore the first invocation of the Emergencies Act since it became law in 1988 to clear the protest. Alberta pastor, Arthur Pawlowski, shared similar comments during the Coutts border blockade, raising concerns over the legal threshold between urging protesters and inciting them to criminal activities. Cases in Ottawa and Alberta highlighted in the article interrogate models of authority and its limit in Canadian society.
Regarding both cases, lawyers have sought to ascertain the extent of influence held by the accused along with the details of what led to the use of the Emergencies Act. Tackling each case’s intricacies before final verdicts can be made. For example, some have stated that officials alone should have that power, not just the unelected medical officer regarding the Alberta case. Moreover, the legal battles also pertained to vaccine refusal in various legal disputes, which resulted in significant decisions, with a majority supporting the vaccine mandates from the court.
Throughout the pandemic, family disputes over the health and safety of children have also been prevalent in the courts. The decisions in such cases have raised questions about parents’ rights over their children’s well-being amidst a public health emergency.
As the pandemic lingers on, court cases continue to multiply, highlighting that the consequences of the pandemic will not end after the pandemic itself.