Judges Rule Against Canadian Provincial Health Ministers: They Are Not Above The Law
Society deserves legal standing
Facing a civil suit over constitutionality of public health orders
B.C. – which already fired over 2500 healthcare workers – continues to terminate government workers over vaccine mandates, even as it seeks to fill gaps in its workforce by expediting the certification of foreign-trained nurses. (May 8, 2022)
Two rulings in the past two weeks suggest that provincial health officers are not above the law, with judges in British Columbia and Alberta issuing crucial decisions against Dr. Bonnie Henry and Dr. Deena Hinshaw.
This week, a B.C. judge ruled that Henry must face a class-action constitutional challenge to several of her health orders under COVID-19, and that he would not throw the challenge out of court as Henry’s lawyers had requested. .
The petition was put forward by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (CSASPP) – an organization that says it includes at least 41 healthcare professionals. CSASPP argues that Henry’s mandatory vaccination orders for healthcare workers are unconstitutional, and that they did not provide reasonable alternatives to vaccination, including rapid testing and religious or medical exemptions.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one; for all are presumed to know those things to which all consent.
No public official is above the law S.C.R. 121
Roncarelli v. Duplessis,  S.C.R. 121, was a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that Maurice Duplessis, then premier of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by revoking the liquor license of a Jehovah's Witness. Justice Ivan Rand wrote in his often-quoted reasons that the unwritten constitutional principle of the "rule of law" meant no public official was above the law and so could neither suspend nor dispense it. Although Duplessis had authority under the relevant legislation, his decision was not based on any factors related to the operation of the license but was made for unrelated reasons and so was held to be exercised arbitrarily and without good faith.
The six judges who sided with Roncarelli used different legal reasoning to reach their decision. Three judges wrote that Duplessis had ordered the cancellation outside his authority as premier; two judges stated that although Duplessis had the power to order the cancellation, he had done so in bad faith; and the sixth judge concluded the premier was not entitled to immunity as a public official.
Roncarelli’s son maintained it was a significant moral victory in his father's struggle against the system.
Thanks for reading Our Greater Destiny Blog! Subscribe for free to receive new posts during these shifting times. TY!
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
Doreen A Agostino
Archive - Our Greater Destiny Blog