Churches argue in court Manitoba top doc too powerful

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/02/2021 (1866 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Lockdown orders and other pandemic restrictions have been issued by the province’s chief public health officer with no scientific support, and they violate the charter rights of Manitobans, a judge was told Tuesday.

“Today we have to wear a mask; is Dr. (Brent) Roussin going to go out tomorrow and say we have to wear five?” said Allison Pejovic, a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, during a hearing before Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Glenn Joyal.

“All he needs to say is this is reasonably necessary and there is no requirement to provide any science,” Pejovic said. “There needs to be some checks on his power.”

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a Calgary-based advocacy group, represents seven Manitoba churches in their fight against pandemic orders that restrict church gatherings: Gateway Bible Baptist Church, Pembina Valley Baptist Church, Redeeming Grace Bible Church, Grace Covenant Church, Slavic Baptist Church, Christian Church of Morden , and Bible Baptist Church. Three individual applicants on the lawsuit include a minister, a deacon, and a man fined for attending a Steinbach protest rally.

The justice centre argues Manitoba’s Public Health Act transfers sweeping lawmaking power to Roussin, with little or no legislative oversight. The justice centre, which has filed similar legal action in B.C. and Alberta, wants sections of the Public Health Act that authorize those powers to be struck down.

Under the act, the chief public health officer may take certain measures if they “reasonably believe” they are necessary, Pejovic said.

“Somebody needs to scrutinize whether Dr. Roussin is reasonable with respect to his ‘reasonable belief,’” she said. “There is no criteria to decide whether an order of Dr. Roussin is necessary.”

Roussin’s health orders are issued with no reference to the latest science, Pejovic said, noting a recent study that she said “called into question” the frequency of COVID-19 transmission by people who are asymptomatic.

“If the science doesn’t matter, why are we doing it?” Pejovic said. “People are going bankrupt, businesses are closing… people’s lives are being destroyed by these orders.

“We’re challenging the government: show us this is justified. Show us the science. And if the science is there, maybe there will be fewer conflicts. The problem is, there is silence.”

Joyal said the subtext of Pejovic’s argument appeared to be that there is a deliberate effort to keep scientific evidence from the public.

“I’m not sure the democratic principle is being affronted in the manner you are alleging,” Joyal said.

Justice centre lawyer Jay Cameron said they don’t take issue with the science behind Roussin’s decisions, but with the authority he has been given to make them.

Cameron said Roussin should be required to report his decisions to the health minister, with supporting reports and studies.

“The minister is not being informed (about) what underscores the decision, so how can he go back to the legislature and say this is why a decision was made?” Cameron said.

Lawyer Michael Conner, who represents the province, said Roussin’s orders are subject to “several layers” of checks and balances, with all levels of government “deeply involved” in decision-making.

Delegating authority to Roussin “makes sense” when dealing with a “rapidly evolving pandemic,” but ministerial approval “is not a rubber stamp,” Conner said.

A second eight-day hearing in the court action, which will focus on arguments that lockdown measures violate freedoms of conscience, religion, expression and association, is set to begin April 19. 

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca