Read on Twitter
Welcome back folks! This has started again and we will hear a ruling from the justice. https://twitter.com/Tommy_Slick/status/1341058349157281797
I had to dial in this time over the phone, I think they just cut out the video stream due to all the issues we saw this morning.
Justice started by going through what the restrictions are. Explaining what the applicants were seeking as well here.
She notes that more time is needed here to do a full constitutional analysis, it's hard to fully judge everything and present all the proper evidence in such a short amount of time.
But on the main matter today about the temporary removal of the restrictions. The applicants claim indoor and outdoor gathering limits and the mask laws breach the Charter, including freedom of religion. Also a claim that they limit freedom of expression.
Lots of legal jargon in the explanations here, going into more background of the Charter rights and what could conceivably be a breach of them. Applicants also claim the restrictions harm rights to liberty and personal autonomy.
She says the applicants have failed to provide any real evidence, apart from feelings of inconvenience and unhappiness.
More on this "evidence", the justice says some of the arguments made by people in the affidavits are unhelpful and she has disregarded some parts of them. She won't dismiss the affidavits completely, though. She will still consider what they say, as they believe it is true.
She adds there is a need to show public interest in seeking these sorts of injunctions.
"This evidence has limited relevance" at this stage, citing what was detailed by people in the affidavits. Now she will consider the merits of the applicants' Charter claims.
The justice adds that what is written in the Charter is not absolute. There can be limits, as long as they are reasonable. Essentially saying you don't have the right to put other people's safety at risk.
These laws must have a limited impact on Charter rights, and reasonable within established law. Court must then also consider if the cost is too high.
She cannot offer a full and complete analysis due to the limited time. But she is satisfied that public health orders do not unreasonably infringe on Charter rights.
On a specific claim about business closures infringing on property rights, the justice doesn't really understand the applicant's point here.
On the claim that people will suffer irreparable harm if the restrictions are not lifted, she says the only decision to be made is if the harm could not be remedied in the future. This can be a very difficult task, much like the other claims being made in this case.
Absent conduct that is clearly wrong, there cannot be financial remedies offered, citing a ruling by the SCOC
She says it is not enough at this time for the applicants to just say rights are being infringed, and if the injunction is not approved then they will suffer harm. Again, a lack of evidence here.
On religious gatherings, she notes how there are drive thru religious proceedings, virtual sessions as well.
But she notes that there could be valid evidence here there would be some harm caused by the restrictions that limit private gatherings.
But she notes that there could be valid evidence here there would be some harm caused by the restrictions that limit private gatherings.
Citing what a couple of people wrote in affidavits, about the importance of celebrating Christmas together. In one of them, a pastor said that wearing masks prevents people from singing gospel effectively and is an affront to God
She says that the evidence being presented here is largely trivial. Little likelihood there is irreparable harm if the injunction is not approved.
Justice says she is not persuaded by what has been presented. On a business owner who claims she would be ruined if the restrictions are not removed, the judge again says there's no actual evidence to prove this. She is asking the judge to presume this to be true.
The focus on public interest raises some special considerations, she adds. But when a private interest claims the public interest is at risk, there needs to be proper proof. Cannot just claim a government authority doesn't represent public interest
She says it's extremely easy to show government actions are in the public interest, by showing that they were made in order to protect people at large.
Applicants argue that the public health orders don't meet public interest because they claim CMOH Dr. Hinshaw is not qualified here. Judge says this unfairly diminishes her role here.
There needs to be a very clear case to get an injunction like this in response to laws. Applicants claim they have met this bar. This is where they rely on the evidence they have presented.
But the justice adds this part of their claim goes too far and meanders away from the central point here. Once again, the point is that the applicants need to show how the public interest is helped by removing restrictions.
Do benefits of celebrating Christmas outweigh harms?
Justice says she does not think so. The risk of transmission is very real here.
Justice says she does not think so. The risk of transmission is very real here.
She says she is bound by previous SCOC ruling to presume that these restrictions are in the public interest. She cites advice from Dr. Hinshaw about what would happen if the virus spreads uncontrolled.
Applicants then claimed that the province needs to show proof that the restrictions work.
Judge says this is not what needs to be proven here. Again, she has to assume through prior rulings that the restrictions are in the name of public health.
Judge says this is not what needs to be proven here. Again, she has to assume through prior rulings that the restrictions are in the name of public health.
She says there is a much greater public interest in maintaining the restrictions than removing them so people can celebrate the season together.
In conclusion, while the applicants do seem to meet some parts here. Overall, what is presented DOES NOT meet the requirements to end the restrictions.
BREAKING: It's official, the application for an injunction has been DISMISSED. The restrictions continue.
And we are adjourned. Nick Parker ends by saying a hearty Merry Christmas to the justice. Choruses of "boos" rain down just before the line cuts out.
Thanks everyone for following along on this crazy day! Appreciate the new follows as well. Have a lovely and safe holidays.
