In dismissing the legal challenge on Nov. 27, Justice John Callaghan said the provincial restrictions were justified and in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“In the extraordinary circumstances existing in the spring of 2021, the gathering restrictions were both necessary and a proportionate response to the most significant health crisis of our time,” Justice Callaghan wrote.
He added that while restricting peaceful assemblies is “unfortunate,” the government’s measures were acceptable “given the realities of the pandemic.”
“There can be no debate that Ontario was facing the greatest health crisis in a century. The most vulnerable in society were at risk, including the elderly and those already suffering from compromised health,” Justice Callaghan wrote.
“There was a real and pressing threat that Ontario’s hospital system would be so overburdened that non-COVID-19 emergencies could not be accommodated due to the burden imposed by rising COVID-19 counts.”
In an interview with The Epoch Times, Mr. Hillier said he is not surprised by the court’s decision, but he’s disappointed.
“The Constitution has been perverted to condone unlawful government behaviour,” Mr. Hillier said. “The Constitution is for protecting the people, not the government.”
The government of Ontario declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued a stay-at-home order in April 2021, banning outdoor gatherings. The order required everyone in Ontario to remain at home unless they were leaving for essential purposes, such as buying groceries or going to the pharmacy.
Mr. Hillier, MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston at the time, attended several peaceful rallies to protest the COVID-19 lockdown measures during the 2021 stay-at-home order. He spoke out against the order during the rallies and talked of the importance of charter rights.
Mr. Hillier, who faces several provincial charges for breaching the lockdown orders, argued a Charter challenge back in July. He said the provincial stay-at-home orders and other emergency measures put in place by the government, such as restricting the right to peacefully gather, violated his right to peaceful protest.
At the July court hearing, Mr. Hillier’s lawyer, Chris Fleury, cited a report by Dr. Kevin Bardosh about the adverse health effects of lockdowns, which include psychological distress, depression, suicide ideation, and self-harm.
The report concluded that Ontario’s COVID-19 restrictions caused “excessive and needless harm to the mental health, physical health and wellbeing of Canadians” and that these harms would have “long-term, negative consequences on the future of Canadian society.”
The judge made his ruling without reference to Dr. Bardosh’s report, declaring, “Dr. Bardosh is not a public health expert.”
Citing Studies
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), speaking in defence of Hillier’s case, also cited studies showing lockdowns contributed to rising obesity, drug abuse, the destruction of small businesses, and a rise in unemployment.According to the JCCF, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires governments in Canada to “justify demonstrably, with persuasive evidence, any violation of the freedoms of association, assembly, religion, conscience, expression, privacy, or bodily autonomy,” and that judges are required to consider not only the potential benefits of freedom-restricting laws, but also the harms.
The group cited the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Oakes, as precedent that the government has the onus of demonstrating that any restrictions to civil liberties do more good than harm, adding that Dr. Bardosh’s report to the court demonstrates the government did not reach that standard.
The Epoch Times contacted the office of the Attorney General of Ontario but didn’t hear back by publication time.
