You are here: Welcome » COVID-19 Pandemic » Legal Challenges During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Both sides next revision
covid-19_pandemic:legal_challenges [2022/03/02 01:47]
liam 		covid-19_pandemic:legal_challenges [2022/07/29 23:50] (current)
liam [United States of America]
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Legal Challenges During the COVID-19 Pandemic ====== ====== Legal Challenges During the COVID-19 Pandemic ======
 +
 +//Also see [[Summary of Legal Challenges]]//
  
 ===== Canada ===== ===== Canada =====
Line 9: Line 11:
 === Klassen v. British Columbia (Attorney General) === === Klassen v. British Columbia (Attorney General) ===
  
-On November 18, 2021, a B.C. Supreme Court justice dismissed a constitutional suit against Provincial Health Officer [[Bonnie Henry]] that alleged the provincial government broke the law by prohibiting religious gatherings. Klassen had argued that creating sanctions for those violating orders moved the situation into the criminal realm, making it a federal issue. Justice Robert Jenkins disagreed, saying “Although there are sanctions, those are necessary to be able to enforce the mandatory compliance needed for the protection and health care of all British Columbians,” Jenkins said in his ruling. He found the orders were created for "the protection and health of the public in an effort to stop COVID-19’s spread." Jenkins said Henry made the orders using authority granted to her by the province. That power, Jenkins said, is within the authority of the Constitution Act.((//Klassen v. British Columbia (Attorney General)//, 2021 BCSC 2254. https://archive.ph/IvT21)) ((Hainsworth, J. (2021, November 22). //B.C. court dismisses constitutional suit against Dr. Bonnie Henry.// Victoria Times Colonist. https://archive.ph/ca4Tu))+On November 18, 2021, a B.C. Supreme Court justice dismissed a constitutional suit against Provincial Health Officer [[:Bonnie Henry]] that alleged the provincial government broke the law by prohibiting religious gatherings. Klassen had argued that creating sanctions for those violating orders moved the situation into the criminal realm, making it a federal issue. Justice Robert Jenkins disagreed, saying “Although there are sanctions, those are necessary to be able to enforce the mandatory compliance needed for the protection and health care of all British Columbians,” Jenkins said in his ruling. He found the orders were created for "the protection and health of the public in an effort to stop COVID-19’s spread." Jenkins said Henry made the orders using authority granted to her by the province. That power, Jenkins said, is within the authority of the Constitution Act.((//Klassen v. British Columbia (Attorney General)//, 2021 BCSC 2254. https://archive.ph/IvT21)) ((Hainsworth, J. (2021, November 22). //B.C. court dismisses constitutional suit against Dr. Bonnie Henry.// Victoria Times Colonist. https://archive.ph/ca4Tu))
  
 === Beaudoin et al v. British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry === === Beaudoin et al v. British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry ===
  
-The [[Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]] has launched a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of BC on behalf of three churches and four individuals against restrictions on public protests and the prohibition of in-person worship services order by BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. [[Bonnie Henry]]. The challenge was filed on January 8, 2021. In response, the BC government filed an injunction application targeting the three churches participating in the court challenge. On February 17, 2021, B.C. Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson denied the government’s request for an injunction. The churches challenging the Provincial Health Orders assert that they have gone to extraordinary lengths to comply with extensive health guidelines, including limiting attendance, pre-registering attendees, rearranging seating to ensure physical distancing, providing hand sanitizer and masks, and enhancing cleaning and sanitizing procedures. In the decision of Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, issued March 18, 2021, the Court ruled to strike down Public Health Orders banning outdoor protests but dismissed the challenge to the BC Government’s prohibition on in-person religious gatherings. Regarding the Applicant churches, Chief Justice Hinkson found that Dr. Henry’s Orders infringe the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, assembly and association, but ruled that the infringements are justified. The Chief Justice did not address the much higher transmission risks in settings BC permits to be open, but rather granted wide deference to Dr. Bonnie Henry’s decision to categorically prohibit in-person religious services.(())+The [[:Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]] has launched a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of BC on behalf of three churches and four individuals against restrictions on public protests and the prohibition of in-person worship services order by BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. [[Bonnie Henry]]. The challenge was filed on January 8, 2021. In response, the BC government filed an injunction application targeting the three churches participating in the court challenge. On February 17, 2021, B.C. Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson denied the government’s request for an injunction. The churches challenging the Provincial Health Orders assert that they have gone to extraordinary lengths to comply with extensive health guidelines, including limiting attendance, pre-registering attendees, rearranging seating to ensure physical distancing, providing hand sanitizer and masks, and enhancing cleaning and sanitizing procedures. In the decision of Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, issued March 18, 2021, the Court ruled to strike down Public Health Orders banning outdoor protests but dismissed the challenge to the BC Government’s prohibition on in-person religious gatherings. Regarding the Applicant churches, Chief Justice Hinkson found that Dr. Henry’s Orders infringe the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, assembly and association, but ruled that the infringements are justified. The Chief Justice did not address the much higher transmission risks in settings BC permits to be open, but rather granted wide deference to Dr. Bonnie Henry’s decision to categorically prohibit in-person religious services.(())
  
 https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/beaudoin-et-al-v-british-columbia-and-provincial-health-officer-dr-bonnie-henry/ https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/beaudoin-et-al-v-british-columbia-and-provincial-health-officer-dr-bonnie-henry/
Line 21: Line 23:
 ==== Ontario ==== ==== Ontario ====
  
-On February 22, 2022, The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz published a precedent-setting decision in Ontario's Family Law Superior Court. Describing the case of a mother defending her decision not to inject her youngest two children with [[COVID-19 vaccines]], Judge Pazaratz wrote "When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom? And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake? How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?" [[Julie Ponnesse]] explained, “What’s crucial about it is not just that the judge ruled in favour of the parent who wants not to vaccinate her children but the comments he makes about how we have lost the ability to think critically and ask questions in the courtroom.”((William, S. (2022, February 25). //Family Law Superior Court Judge Sets “the Precedent We’ve Been Waiting For.”// Canadian Covid Care Alliance. https://archive.ph/SHtRw))+On February 22, 2022, The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz published a precedent-setting decision in Ontario's Family Law Superior Court. Describing the case of a mother defending her decision not to inject her youngest two children with [[:COVID-19 vaccines]], Judge Pazaratz wrote "When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom? And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake? How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?"((J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198, (Ontario Superior Court of Justice February 22, 2022). https://web.archive.org/web/20220301232821/https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1198/2022onsc1198.pdf)) [[:Julie Ponnesse]] explained, “What’s crucial about it is not just that the judge ruled in favour of the parent who wants not to vaccinate her children but the comments he makes about how we have lost the ability to think critically and ask questions in the courtroom.”((William, S. (2022, February 25). //Family Law Superior Court Judge Sets “the Precedent We’ve Been Waiting For.”// Canadian Covid Care Alliance. https://archive.ph/SHtRw))
  
 ==== Québec ==== ==== Québec ====
  
-The [[Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]] announced on January 13, 2022 that they would be taking legal action in response to Québec Premier [[Francois Legault]]'s threat of imposing a "health tax" on unvaccinated citizens.((//Justice Centre will take legal action against Quebec tax on unvaccinated.// (2022, January 13). Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. https://archive.ph/tcLz0)) ((Newton, P. (2022, January 13). //Quebec to impose a “significant” fine on unvaccinated residents.// CNN. https://archive.ph/fi1dD)) +The [[:Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]] announced on January 13, 2022 that they would be taking legal action in response to Québec Premier [[:Francois Legault]]'s threat of imposing a "health tax" on unvaccinated citizens.((//Justice Centre will take legal action against Quebec tax on unvaccinated.// (2022, January 13). Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. https://archive.ph/tcLz0)) ((Newton, P. (2022, January 13). //Quebec to impose a “significant” fine on unvaccinated residents.// CNN. https://archive.ph/fi1dD))
  
 ===== Germany ===== ===== Germany =====
Line 32: Line 33:
 A legal case launched on December 28, 2021 claims that two of the declared ingredients of the Pfizer Comirnity product, coded lipids known as ALC-0315  and ALC-0159, are specifically not for human use, according to their manufacturers.((https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/illegal-pfizer-ingredients-german-legal-case)) A legal case launched on December 28, 2021 claims that two of the declared ingredients of the Pfizer Comirnity product, coded lipids known as ALC-0315  and ALC-0159, are specifically not for human use, according to their manufacturers.((https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/illegal-pfizer-ingredients-german-legal-case))
  
 +===== United States of America =====
 +
 +As of July 22, 2022, there were at least 16,236 complaints filed in the [[:United States of America]] related to the [[:COVID-19 pandemic]].((//COVID-19 Complaint Tracker.// (2022, July 22). Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. https://web.archive.org/web/20220729214829/https://www.huntonak.com/en/covid-19-tracker.html))
 +
 +==== Censorship ====
 +
 +On July 12, 2022, a judge granted a request for discovery in a lawsuit against the [[:Joe Biden]] administration and various social media companies in response to their widespread censorship of dissident voices on topics including [[:COVID-19]], [[:SARS-CoV-2]] and [[:Hunter Biden]]'s laptop.((Roberts, K. (2022, July 19). //Judge Grants Request for Discovery Phase in Social Media Collusion Lawsuit Against Biden Admin.// The Epoch Times. https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-grants-request-for-discovery-phase-in-social-media-collusion-lawsuit-against-biden-admin_4606781.html))
Back to top