The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is reviewing arguments against the provincial government’s gathering limits during the pandemic. Two residents have challenged a court decision that upheld fines given to those accused of breaking the restrictions by attending outdoor gatherings. Andre Memauri, represented Jasmin Grandel and Darrell Mills, giving his arguments to the court on Feb. 6. Mr. Memauri is from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). He said there was “no compelling basis” for the province to impose restrictions on outdoor gatherings, citing that “Our infectious disease specialist made it clear at the lower court that the outdoor transmission of COVID-19 was negligible, much like every other respiratory illness in history.”
During the pandemic, Saskatchewan restricted outdoor gatherings to a maximum of 10 people between March 17, 2020, and July 11, 2021. However, there was a question about the fair application of the restrictions after an outdoor gathering of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors was not fined while protestors gathering against the government measures were fined. The JCCF noted that on June 5, 2020, hundreds of people attended a BLM rally in Regina, which included then-police chief Evan Bray, other members of the Regina Police Service, the mayor, and members of city council, according to media reports. This contrasted with the fines given to protestors who gathered against lockdown measures six months later.
The JCCF said the case also raised the issue that protests against government lockdown policies were targeted by law enforcement. However, a decision by Justice D.B. Konkin of the Court of King’s Bench of Saskatchewan upheld government restrictions in a Sept. 20, 2022, dismissing the case. While Justice Konklin found that the public health orders did violate the Charter right to freedom of expression, the province “met its burden” and proved to the court that the restrictions were “reasonable” and “demonstrably justifiable.” JCCF president John Carpay said the court did not consider the harms caused by the restrictions, stating, “It appears that lockdown harms were not considered by the government or by the court, when applying this ‘precautionary’ principle.”