“The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate,” Justice Jocelyne Gagné wrote in her decision, due to the mandates and other public health measures having been repealed.
“There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.”
Gagné also said the court should not prevent or dictate future government actions.
When the Liberal government made the announcement the vaccine mandate for domestic travel would be lifted on June 14, its messaging was centred around the word “suspension” and that the mandate could be brought back depending on circumstances.
Shortly after Ottawa abandoned the domestic travel vaccine mandate by letting an interim order expire, the attorney general filed a mootness motion against the four lawsuits.
The lawsuits involve businessmen Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard, PPC Leader Maxime Bernier, former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford and co-applicants, and Quebec lawyer Nabil Belkacem.
Their arguments included that the interim orders were unconstitutional and in breach of their charter rights, and that the court should rule to prevent such measures from being implemented again.
Some applicants also argued that natural immunity should be recognized on the same footing as having been fully vaccinated, in the context of a mandate.
The attorney general argued that the applicants had already obtained the ultimate remedy in the lifting of the mandate, that there was no live controversy, and that judicial resources should be spared.
Justice Gagné essentially agreed with all the arguments brought forward by the government.
“In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing,” Gagné wrote about the possibility of new mandates being imposed in the future.
Harrison criticized the ruling and said all the applicants will appeal.
“Six million Canadians, deprived unconstitutionally of protected rights for nearly a year and subjected to discrimination, will be as offended as we are that this judge felt that their concerns were not worth the cost of a 5 day hearing in the Federal Court,” he said in a statement to The Epoch Times.
“The issues here are no more moot than is the behaviour of an abusive spouse who beats their partner for a year, and demands absolution for doing no more than temporarily stopping whilst threatening to start all over again some time in the future.”
Harrison said the applicants’ intent is to not only challenge Justice Gagné’s ruling, but also the way the mootness doctrine is applied in Canada.
